United States v. Insook Kim, AKA in Sook Kim

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting defendant-appellee Insook Kim’s (“Kim”) motion to suppress incriminating statements that she made during the execution of a search warrant at her store. The district court found that she was “in custody” for Miranda purposes, and therefore entitled to the familiar warnings before questioning began. The government appeals, contending that Kim was not in custody and therefore not entitled to the warnings. We affirm.

I.

Investigators obtained evidence that Kim’s store, the “LiT Brick Deli,” was selling large quantities of pseudoephed-rine, the main precursor chemical in the production of methamphetamine. A Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) investigator and a Korean-speaking sheriffs deputy went to Kim’s store in October 1999 to advise her about the connection between sales of large quantities pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine production.

Eight months later, an undercover officer purchased a case of pseudoephedrine at Kim’s store from her employee Sang Kyun Kim. Soon thereafter, on August 3, 2000, police officers executed a search warrant at the Lil’ Brick Deli, where they found Kim’s 18-year-old son, Kevin, running the…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the court’s ■determination that Insook Kim was “in custody” for Fifth Amendment purposes when police officers questioned ' her. While paying lip service to the factors that properly guide our determination, the majority fails, in my view, to apply them faithfully to the facts before us.

I

As the majority correctly states, an officer’s obligation to give the traditional Miranda warning to a suspect applies only to custodial interrogation. “In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Stansbury v. Cal., 511 U.S. 318, 322 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The inquiry should focus on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views of the officers or the individual being questioned. Id. at 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . “An objective standard avoids imposing upon police officers the often impossible burden of predicting whether the person they…

292 F.3d 969 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Insook KIM, aka In Sook Kim, Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-30166. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 7, 2002. * Filed June 6, 2002. John C. Laing, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, Portland, OR, for the plaintiff-appellant. Kenneth Ricardo Perry, Portland, Oregon, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding. Before: B. FLETCHER, O'SCANNLAIN and BERZON, Circuit Judges. BERZON, Circuit Judge. 1 The United States appeals the district court's order granting defendant-appellee Insook Kim's ("Kim") motion to suppress incriminating statements that she made during the execution of a search warrant at her store. The district court found that she was "in custody" for Miranda purposes, and therefore entitled to the familiar warnings before questioning began. The government appeals, contending that Kim was not in custody and therefore not entitled to the warnings. We affirm. I. 2 Investigators obtained evidence that Kim's store, the "Lil' Brick Deli," was selling large quantities of…