583 F.3d 891 (6th Cir. 2009), 07-4055, United States v. Quinney
|Citation:||583 F.3d 891|
|Opinion Judge:||RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn QUINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Jeffrey Paul Nunnari, Law Office, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant. David O. Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee. Jeffrey Paul Nunnari, Law Office, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellant. David O. Bauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GILMAN, COOK, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.[*] GILMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which COOK, J., joined. FARRIS, J. (p. 895), delivered a separate concurring opinion. JEROME FARRIS, Circuit Judge, concurring.|
|Case Date:||October 01, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Argued: July 31, 2009.
Shawn Quinney appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the key evidence used against him. Quinney was indicted on two counts of manufacturing and passing counterfeit currency. He pled guilty to both counts, but preserved his right to contest the district court's decision denying Quinney's motion to suppress a printer and two statements that he made to law enforcement authorities. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Quinney was under investigation by special agents from the United States Secret Service for manufacturing and passing counterfeit currency. Two agents visited Quinney's home and obtained his consent to look in his bedroom, where they observed a printer. Quinney, who was then 19 years old, admitted to the agents that he had passed bogus bills, but denied printing them.
Later that afternoon, after receiving information from two witnesses that Quinney had in fact printed the counterfeit bills, the agents returned to his residence. During the second visit, the agents seized the printer without obtaining either consent or a search warrant. Quinney was not home at the time, and his stepfather, with whom he lived, testified that the agents simply announced that they were seizing the printer without seeking even the stepfather's permission.
The agents then located Quinney and interviewed him in their car. He was not placed under arrest or warned of his Miranda rights at that time. The agents informed him that they had seized his printer and were sending it to forensics for examination. In addition, they told him that two witnesses had implicated him as the manufacturer of counterfeit bills. At some point during this second interview, Quinney gave the agents a written confession of guilt. He was interviewed a third time a week later at the agents' office and wrote a one-page supplement to his earlier confession. The parties dispute whether the agents advised Quinney of his Miranda rights during this third interview.
Quinney was charged with...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP