United States v. Moreno-Lopez, 72-1910.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1910.,72-1910. |
| Citation | 466 F.2d 1205 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isabel MORENO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Anthony S. Deutsch (argued), of Federal Defenders, Inc., San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Thomas Coffin (argued), Stephen G. Nelson Asst. U. S. Attys., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HUFSTEDLER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and LUCAS,* District Judge.
On this appeal, the only question before us is whether appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. We hold that she did, and that her motion to suppress was properly denied.
Appellant was the driver and sole occupant of a motor vehicle entering this country from Mexico. Customs inspectors detected marijuana secreted in the fuel tank but allowed appellant to proceed under surveillance. Shortly thereafter she was stopped and arrested, the marijuana was seized and appellant was warned of her rights but not questioned.
Fifteen minutes later appellant was again warned of her rights. The agent giving the warning learned at that time that she was 19, had attended high school in the United States and spoke English well. She gave no response to a query from an agent asking her if she had any questions concerning her rights, but she did indicate that she understood her rights. In response to subsequent questioning by the agents, appellant made the statements which, upon trial, were the subject of a motion to suppress.
Counsel who represented appellant at the trial acknowledged that proper warnings were given without threats or promises and that there was a clear indication that she understood her rights. Her counsel on appeal urges that, in the absence of an express waiver, incriminating statements made during an in-custody interrogation should have been suppressed.
An express waiver is not required. Rather, courts must look at the circumstances of each case to determine the validity of a waiver of Miranda rights. In United States v. Hilliker, 436 F.2d 101, 102 (9th Cir. 1970) cert. denied 401 U.S. 958, 91 S.Ct. 987, 28 L.Ed.2d 242 (1971), we said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina v. Butler
...364 (CA7 1970); United States v. Marchildon, 519 F.2d 337 (CA8 1975); Hughes v. Swenson, 452 F.2d 866 (CA8 1971); United States v. Moreno-Lopez, 466 F.2d 1205 (CA9 1972); United States v. Hilliker, 436 F.2d 101 (CA9 1970); Bond v. United States, 397 F.2d 162 (CA10 1968) (but see Sullins v. ......
-
People v. Pierson
...United States v. Marchildon, 519 F.2d 337 (8th Cir.1975); Hughes v. Swenson, 452 F.2d 866 (8th Cir.1971); United States v. Moreno-Lopez, 466 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir.1972); United States v. Hilliker, 436 F.2d 101 (9th Cir.1970); Bond v. United States, 397 F.2d 162 (10th Cir.1968) (but see Sullins......
-
People v. Campbell
...532; United States v. Ganter, 436 F.2d 364 United States v. Marchildon, 519 F.2d 337 Hughes v. Swenson, 452 F.2d 866 United States v. Moreno-Lopez, 466 F.2d 1205 Bond v. United States, 397 F.2d 162 Mitchell v. United States, 434 F.2d 483 cert. den. 400 U.S. 867, 91 S.Ct. 109, 27 L.Ed.2d 106......
-
U.S. v. Binder
...a valid waiver. Under our clearly erroneous standard of review, the trial court's ruling will be upheld. See United States v. Moreno-Lopez, 466 F.2d 1205, 1206 (9th Cir.1972) (knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver found in case where nineteen-year-old had attended high school in Americ......