United States v. Michelle Lyn Michaud

Opinion by Judge FISHER; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT

Appellant Michelle Michaud entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (a)(1), kidnapping and transporting a victim across state lines. On appeal she challenges her conviction, contending that her incriminating statements should have been suppressed and her sentence was improperly enhanced. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

I.

After a joint investigation by the FBI and the Placer County, California Sheriffs Department into a kidnapping and sexual assault, law enforcement officials isolated Michaud and her boyfriend, James Daveg-gio, as suspects and located them at a motel in Stateline, Nevada. The Placer County police secured warrants for their arrest on December 2, 1997. Aware of the existence of the state warrants, FBI Agent Lynn Ferrin led a group of agents to Michaud’s hotel the following day. Another agent knocked on Michaud’s door, claimed to be the assistant manager of the hotel and told her that her boyfriend was sick and needed her assistance. In reality, Daveggio had already been apprehended. When Michaud opened the door, the agents placed her under arrest, took her to another…

dissenting:

I dissent because the facts in this case present a clear cut violation of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and there is no basis in law for the unprecedented legal theory upon which the majority bases its contrary ruling.

As my colleagues recognize, in Edwards , the Supreme Court established a bright-line rule prohibiting the interrogation of a suspect in custody who invokes the right to counsel, “unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Id. at 485 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 (emphasis added); see also id. at 486 n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (stating that authorities must show “the necessary fact that the accused, not the police, reopened the dialogue with the authorities”); Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411, 418 (9th Cir.1991). The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that Edwards provides a “rigid,” “bright-line” rule, and “clear and unequivocal guidelines” to law enforcement. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681-82 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988); Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 634 , 106 S.Ct. 1404 , 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986); Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 98 ,…

268 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT No. 99-10440 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted March 12, 2001 Filed September 25, 2001 [Copyrighted Material Omitted][Copyrighted Material Omitted] Glynn Burroughs Cartledge, Reno, Nevada, for the defendant-appellant. Ronald C. Rachow, Daniel G. Bogden, Assistant United States Attorneys, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; David Warner Hagen, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-97-00125-DWH Before: Reinhardt, Rymer and Fisher, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Fisher; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt Fisher, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Michelle Michaud entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. &#167 1201(a)(1), kidnapping and transporting a victim across state lines. On appeal she challenges her conviction, contending that her incriminating statements should have been suppressed and her sentence was improperly enhanced. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm. I. 2 After a joint investigation by the FBI and the Placer…