Walker

MEMORANDUM **

Larry Kent Walker appeals his conviction for felony murder, second degree murder, two counts of assault and the sentences imposed thereon. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court correctly held that Walker’s statements to law enforcement authorities were admissible because of the delay between tribal arrest and federal arraignment. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (c). United States v. Wilson, 838 F.2d 1081, 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.1988). We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings related to the pre-arraignment delay. United States v. Padilla-Mendoza, 157 F.3d 730, 732 (9th Cir.1998).

Walker argues that the federal government and tribal law enforcement colluded in order to question him about the federal charges while he was in tribal custody. Generally, federal authorities may interview someone in local government custody. United States v. Michaud, 268 F.3d 728, 734 (9th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir.1970)). However, if local authorities colluded with…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all of the majority’s opinion except Section I, from which I respectfully dissent. BIA agent Lietch testified at trial that federal authorities “had the Tribal police looking for Walker” and that he intended to question Walker after he was arrested by tribal authorities. His contemporaneous notes indicate that “we have tribal charges, warrants, against the—and the tribal police are helping us look for the mother and her boyfriends.” Walker was arrested by the tribal police on a charge of “illicit cohabitation.” He was then questioned in tribal jail numerous times over a period of several days. He was not arraigned on federal charges for another month.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) requires that a person arrested for a federal crime must be taken before a magistrate “without unnecessary delay.” Confessions obtained in violation of proper presentment are generally inadmissible unless made within the six hour safe harbor provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (c) or “if public policy concerns weigh in favor of admission.” United States v. Padilla-Mendoza, 157 F.3d 730, 731 (9th Cir.1998). However, if local authorities acted in…