United States v. Charles Chaney

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on September 10, 2012 is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended memorandum disposition.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions shall be permitted.

MEMORANDUM

Charles Chaney (“Chaney”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress two recorded interviews with police officers in their car. Chaney argues that his statements, though voluntary, should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, as the statements were the product of an illegal police entry into his home. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, and review for clear error underlying factual findings. United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2004).

Voluntary statements should be suppressed where officers confront the suspect with illegally obtained evidence, or where the defendant’s answers during questioning may have been “induced or influenced by the illegal search.” United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150, 1158 (9th Cir.2011). Chaney’s statements were not a “product…