Hillmann
United States v. Hillmann
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Steven Arthur Hillmann appeals his conviction for importing and possessing with intent to distribute 3,553 milliliters of ketamine, a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 , 960, 841(1)(a). We affirm Hillman’s conviction for importation of ketamine, but we reverse his conviction for possession with intent to distribute.
1. The District Court Properly Admitted Statements Made by Hillmann to Customs Agents Before He Was Advised of His Miranda Rights.
We have long recognized that Fourth Amendment rules are different at *529 the border, where travelers may routinely be searched and detained without probable cause or Miranda warnings. See United States v. Butler, 249 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir.2001). Detaining a person for routine border questioning is not custodial, even if a person is “not free to leave or to refuse to be searched.” Id. at 1098 . To determine whether detention at the border qualifies as “custody” for Miranda purposes, we must ask whether “a reasonable innocent person ... would conclude that after brief questioning he or she would not be free to leave. ” United States v. Bravo, 295 F.3d 1002,1009 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted)…