Engblom

MEMORANDUM *

Terry Engblom appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements and evidence obtained during a search of his home. He claims that the evidence and statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and that his consent to the search was involuntary. Reviewing de novo, we agree with the district court and conclude that, given the totality of the circumstances, Engblom was neither “in custody” nor “interrogated.” Reviewing for clear error, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Engblom’s consent to the search of his home was given voluntarily. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

1. Custody and Interrogation

The district court properly applied the factors set out in United States v. Hayden, 260 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.2001), and correctly concluded that Engblom was not in custody when he made incriminating statements. The brief encounter between Deputy Grant and Engblom occurred on Engblom’s front porch, not in a confined area, and Grant made no effort to prevent Engblom or any of the others present from leaving. Furthermore, the evidence…