U.S. v. Luther, 74-3178
| Decision Date | 30 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-3178,74-3178 |
| Citation | 521 F.2d 408 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernestine A. LUTHER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before KOELSCH, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
Mrs. Luther was convicted of smuggling merchandise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545, and she appeals. We affirm.
Mrs. Luther was stopped at the primary inspection area at the port of entry in San Ysidro. She failed to make any declaration in response to the routine question by the customs officer. An inspection of her car then revealed 3,600 Wobe-mugos laertile capsules of German origin 1 in the trunk. Her car keys were taken from her and she was directed to wait in the secondary inspection area.
She was questioned there by Special Agent Nadel, who had been informed by telephone of the incident concerning Mrs. Luther. He knew that Mrs. Luther had failed to declare the medicine as required, and that the medicine was unauthorized for entry because of its foreign label. Upon viewing the Wobe-mugos capsules, however, he determined that they were of such little value that he would only make an administrative seizure. Holding the bag containing the capsules, he questioned Mrs. Luther over the public counter in the inspection area to verify her identification and her possession of the undeclared medicine. He then offered Mrs. Luther a receipt and told her she could leave. Mrs. Luther chose to remain while a call was made to see if Wobe-mugos were authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. Upon learning that the capsules would be held she obtained her car keys and left.
The next day Agent Nadel learned that the quantity of laertile possessed by Mrs. Luther was worth $1,200. Surmising that a seizure of some importance had taken place, he obtained a warrant and arrested Mrs. Luther at her home. Only at that point were Miranda warnings given.
Appellant urges that when questioned at the secondary inspection office at the port of entry in San Ysidro, she was deprived of her freedom of action in a significant way and was in custody as conceived in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). She contends that statements obtained at that time were inadmissible because no Miranda warning was given her. We hold that the interrogation was not custodial in nature for the purposes of Miranda and, consequently, that the testimony of Agent Nadel was properly admitted.
By "custodial interrogation" the Miranda Court meant questioning initiated after a person was taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. In this circuit an objective reasonable man test is employed in determining whether a person is in custody. The factors to be considered are the language used to summon him, the physical surroundings of the interrogation, the extent to which he is confronted with evidence of his guilt, and pressure exerted to detain him. If the person reasonably believes that he cannot leave freely, he is considered in custody and a Miranda warning is required. Lowe v. United States, 407 F.2d 1391, 1397 (9th Cir. 1969).
Applying these rules to the present case, we find that the temporary detention was not significant. Mrs. Luther...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitfield v. State
... ... the questioning in the Baltimore City jail, for if this is so, then it will be unnecessary for us to delineate the type of interrogation that then occurred ... Relying on dicta ... Douzanis, 592 F.2d 1202, 1206 (1st Cir. 1979); United States ... Page 140 ... v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1975) (Per curiam ); Iverson v. State of North Dakota, 480 F.2d 414, ... ...
-
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
...504 F.2d 1255, 1266, 27 A.L.R.Fed. 925 (4th Cir. 1974), or where there would otherwise be a miscarriage of justice. U.S. v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1975). Since we find neither, we must strike these matters as well. Were we to rule otherwise, the federal and state defendants wou......
-
People v. Smith
...is without or within the custodial state [compare United States v. Estrada-Lucas, 651 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir.1980) with United States v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408 (9th Cir.1975) In a prison setting, however, the "free-to-leave" test must be modified, because prisoners are never free to leave. A pure......
-
U.S. v. Dixon
...17, 1986), when a person 'reasonably believes that he cannot leave freely, he is considered in custody.' United States v. Luther, 521 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1975) (per curiam); accord United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing cases); United States v. Mesa, 638 F.2......