State v. Gomez

• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Considered by VAITHESWARAN
• Citation: State v. Gomez, 820 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa App. 2012)
• Decision Date: 13 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–0350.,11–0350.
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Patricia Joan GOMEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

820 N.W.2d 158

STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Patricia Joan GOMEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 11–0350.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

June 13, 2012.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, D.J. Stovall (motion to suppress) and Robert B. Hanson (trial and sentencing), Judges.

Patricia Gomez appeals her convictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance enhanced as a subsequent offender, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver enhanced as a subsequent offender, and failure to possess a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrell Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by VAITHESWARAN, P.J., and TABOR and MULLINS, JJ.

MULLINS, J.

Patricia Gomez appeals her drug-related convictions following a stipulated bench trial. She contends the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made after proper Miranda warnings and a valid waiver of rights, when the police had already obtained an earlier unwarned admission from her. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In April 2010, Officer Matt Flattery from the Mid–Iowa Narcotics Enforcement task force began a narcotics investigation into Elwanda Prothero, Gomez's mother. In April and May 2010, a confidential informant was utilized to purchase methamphetamine from Prothero on three separate occasions.

On June 29, 2010, the confidential informant arranged to make a fourth controlled buy of methamphetamine from Prothero. Prothero informed the informant that the purchase would occur at a business's parking lot on Southeast 14th Street in Des Moines. While conducting surveillance on the parking lot, officers observed a younger white male, later identified at Sonny Palmer, pull into the parking lot in a red Cutlass Ciera. Shortly thereafter, a black Mazda pulled into the parking lot and parked next to the Cutlass Ciera. The female driver of the Mazda was later identified as Gomez. After a few minutes, Gomez drove the Mazda to a trailer park about a block away on East Glenwood Drive.

Gomez parked the Mazda in front of a trailer home, exited the vehicle, and met briefly with an unidentified male. Gomez then walked back to the parking lot from which she had just driven, and got into the passenger seat of the Cutlass Ciera. The confidential informant, who was on the phone with Palmer, was then told the drugs could be purchased from a red Cutlass Ciera in the business's parking lot.

At this time, four officers from the drug task force wearing overlay vests that had “police” on the front and back approached the Cutlass Ciera with their guns drawn. Gomez and Palmer were instructed to exit the vehicle, and both complied. Officer Anthony Giampolo placed Gomez in handcuffs, and advised her that she was not under arrest, but was being detained as a part of a narcotics investigation. Gomez asked Officer Giampolo what was going on, and he replied that he would escort her to the case agent, Officer Flattery, who would explain everything. Officer Giampolo then asked Gomez if there was anything illegal in the vehicle, and Gomez replied, “Yes.” Gomez was walked about ten feet and placed into the front passenger seat of Officer Flattery's vehicle.

After one to two minutes, Officer Flattery returned to his vehicle to speak with Gomez. Officer Flattery immediately read Gomez her Miranda rights from a card. Gomez acknowledged that she understood her rights and agreed to speak with Officer Flattery. Gomez told him there were two “eight balls” of methamphetamine in the vehicle and a smaller amount for personal use in her purse. Gomez admitted that her mother, Prothero, gave her the two eight balls to sell for $550 to a female named “Tanya,” who turned out to be the confidential informant. Gomez further stated she had used methamphetamine the previous day, and that her mother sells narcotics. During the questioning, Gomez was upset and crying, and told Officer Flattery that “she would do anything not to go back to prison.”

The Cutlass Ciera was searched and two plastic bags containing a total of 8.1 grams of methamphetamine were found in a plastic cup by Gomez's purse on the floor in between the front seats. Neither bag had a drug tax stamp affixed. A small amount of methamphetamine was also found in Gomez's purse. Since Gomez indicated an interest in cooperating with law enforcement officials, she was released without being taken to jail.

On July 2, 2010, Gomez met with Officer Flattery at the Urbandale Police Department. At the outset of the interview, Gomez was provided Miranda warnings, which she waived. Gomez did not request the assistance of an attorney, and was forthcoming about her involvement with narcotics. During the interview, Gomez expressed an interest in being a confidential informant, and provided a few names of people from whom she had previously purchased methamphetamine.

On July 7, 2010, Gomez, again without the assistance of counsel, met with Officer Flattery and an assistant county attorney at the Polk County Attorney's office. At this time, Gomez signed a memorandum of understanding. The memorandum included a document entitled “admission of involvement in criminal activity,” which set forth the Miranda warnings, under which Gomez handwrote the admission: “On June 29th, 2010, I was meeting Tanya to drop off more than 7 grams of ice to her and picking up $550.00.” After this meeting, Gomez failed to stay in contact with the police and was eventually arrested.

On September 8, 2010, the State filed a trial information charging Gomez with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and failure to possess a drug tax stamp. SeeIowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(b)(7), 453B.12. The State further sought sentencing enhancements on the conspiracy and possession charges due to Gomez's previous conviction in federal court in March 2005 for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. Id. § 124.411. Gomez pled not guilty to the charges.

On October 27, 2010, Gomez filed a motion to suppress seeking to exclude the use of all statements made during her encounters with law enforcement.¹ Gomez alleged the statements made prior to Miranda warnings should be excluded under the Fifth Amendment, and that the statements made after the Miranda warnings were “fruits of the poisonous tree.”

Following a hearing, the district court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part. The district court determined that Gomez's response of “Yes” to Officer Giampolo's initial question regarding whether there were drugs in the vehicle prior to Miranda warnings should be suppressed. However, the court also determined that the statements made to Officer Flattery post- Miranda warnings as well as the statements made at the police station and the county attorney's office were voluntary and knowingly and intelligently given, and thus could be used at trial.

Gomez subsequently waived her right to a jury trial and agreed to a stipulated bench trial on the minutes of testimony. The district court found Gomez guilty as charged. Gomez now appeals arguing the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress.

II. Standard of Review.

The Miranda warnings protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. State v. Ortiz, 766 N.W.2d 244, 249 (Iowa 2009). Accordingly, we review a district court's refusal to suppress statements allegedly made in violation of this constitutional protection de novo. State v. Palmer, 791 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Iowa 2010). In doing so, we make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record. State v. Watts, 801 N.W.2d 845, 850 (Iowa 2011).

III. Issues on Appeal.

Gomez argues that her response to Officer Giampolo's question was correctly suppressed as a violation of her Miranda rights, but the district court erred by not suppressing all of the other post- Miranda statements because they were tainted by this unwarned admission. Gomez ultimately seeks a “cat is out of the bag” approach to Miranda violations; namely, once an unwarned admission is gained, any subsequent warnings are not likely to be effective.

The State contends that Miranda warnings were not required for Officer Giampolo's single question, and that even if they were, the subsequent Miranda warnings provided before each additional questioning were sufficient to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement. We will address each questioning event in turn.

IV. Pre- Miranda Admission on June 29 to Officer Giampolo.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 (1966), the United States Supreme Court determined that when an individual is subjected to a custodial interrogation, the person's constitutional rights require the police to inform the individual

prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in the court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Absent these warnings and a valid waiver, statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. However, these warnings are not required unless there is both custody and interrogation. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 2397, 110 L.Ed.2d 243, 251 (1990) (“It is the premise of Miranda that the danger of coercion results from the interaction of custody and official interrogation.”).

Although the circumstances of each case must certainly influence a determination of whether an individual is “in custody” for...