U.S. v. Bassignani

Decision Date25 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-10453.,07-10453.
Citation575 F.3d 879
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alexander BASSIGNANI, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Amber S. Rosen, Assistant United States Attorney, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant and filed the briefs; Joseph P. Russoniello, United States Attorney, and Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Section, were on the briefs.

Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, argued the cause for the defendant-appellee and filed a brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-06-00657-SI.

Before DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, RONALD M. GOULD, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed in this case on March 25, 2009, is amended as follows:

At page 3824 of the slip opinion, line 17, delete accompanied Williams>.

At page 3827 of the slip opinion, lines 9-11, replace disputed threshold issues: the appropriate standard of review and the burden of proof. A> with

At pages 3827-28 of the slip opinion, delete the two paragraphs that form Section II.B, beginning with the district court did not explicitly address the burden of proof> At page 3828 of the slip opinion, lines 14-15, replace we turn to the question whether Bassignani established that he was "in custody"> with we turn to the question whether Bassignani was "in custody"&gt

At page 3835 of the slip opinion, lines 10-15, replace with the district court show&gt

II

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Bea voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

OPINION

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a criminal defendant was "in custody" when police officers interviewed him for over two hours in a conference room at his workplace.

I
A

In 2005, Yahoo, Inc. reported that "a user with the email address `big_perm 2469@yahoo.com' had uploaded child pornographic images to Yahoo sites." That report caught the attention of the Sacramento Valley High Tech Crimes Unit, which launched an investigation. During the ensuing inquiry, officers discovered that an alternate e-mail address for the same user was "alex.bassignani@tellabs. com." Tellabs is a business located in two locations — on North McDowell Boulevard and on South McDowell Boulevard — in Petaluma, California.

Based upon such circumstantial evidence, the investigators began building a case. Detective James Williams contacted Tellabs and confirmed that a man named Alex Bassignani worked there. Tellabs personnel also told Williams that "Bassignani had access to a desktop computer with internet access; and that ... Bassignani had installed on a work computer ... software called `Window Washer,' which can be set to delete and overwrite Internet-browsing history and other information on a computer hard drive."

Using the information provided by Tellabs, investigators obtained a warrant to search Bassignani's workspace. The warrant also permitted officers to search Bassignani's residence, vehicle, and person. Officers were authorized to seize computer software and any images of child pornography.1 Although Bassignani worked at the South McDowell Boulevard site, the warrant only authorized officers to search the North McDowell Boulevard location.

On February 23, 2006, Detective Williams and three other officers served the search warrant at the North McDowell Tellabs location. They were informed of the mistake and went immediately to the South McDowell site. After they arrived, Sasha King, Tellabs' Human Resources Manager, guided them to Bassignani's work station, where she reported the following encounter: "Detective [Williams] approached Bassignani and asked him to remove himself from the computer. Bassignani was hesitant, so Detective Williams reiterated the request a few times more before Bassignani complied. Bassignani was then instructed to follow me as Detective Williams remained at Bassignani's side."2 The officers were in plain clothes and no weapons were visible. One officer stayed behind to remove the hard drive on Bassignani's computer.

King then led Bassignani and Williams to a Tellabs conference room where two officers were already waiting. King entered the conference room first, and stepped to the side to allow Bassignani to enter. Bassignani chose a chair on the left side of the table, and Williams sat down across from him. The two officers departed to search Bassignani's car, and closed the conference room door behind them.3 The parties dispute whether the officers frisked Bassignani before allowing him into the conference room.

Before the interview began, Williams told Bassignani that he was "not under arrest. You're not being arrested. You'll walk out of here when we're done." He did not, however, ever tell Bassignani explicitly that he was free to leave. In addition, in an attempt to "`make things easier for everybody' with regard to executing the search warrant at defendant's house," Williams asked Bassignani "whether [his] wife was home, whether [he] had any dogs or guns, and where[his] house keys were." Williams also requested Bassignani's car keys, saying that without them officers would have to break into Bassignani's vehicle to execute the search warrant.4 Bassignani resisted for a few minutes, but then told Williams that the keys were in his lunch pail.

Williams then questioned Bassignani about his alleged involvement in possessing and uploading images of child pornography. Williams' tone was calm and measured throughout. For the most part, Bassignani participated actively, saying that "I understand what you're doing. I understand what you're saying. I'm more than happy to go with you through the process." Bassignani admitted to possessing and uploading child pornography. Meanwhile, officers discovered the components of the "Window Washers" program in Bassignani's lunch pail and vehicle parked in the South McDowell Tellabs parking lot. Other officers also uncovered evidence of images of child pornography on Bassignani's home computer.

Not all of the interrogation, however, was completely civil. Bassignani said to Williams at one point: "I don't want you to get mad again, because you make that face ... I understand that you're doing your job, but I just needed at the beginning to slow you down for just a second, you know, I don't want you to get mad, to start threatening and this and that, I want to steer clear of that." In addition, near the end of the interview, Williams told Bassignani that "the big thing is, it's your laptop ... I'm not going to lie to you ... we've got your email connected to the images, it's a done thing."

Also near the end of the interrogation, Bassignani asked: "[A]t what point in this game do I need to get a lawyer?" Williams replied: "Me? I'd wait until you get arrested, but that's me. Like I said at the beginning, you're not under arrest, you're going to walk out of here." Williams also told Bassignani that he was "more than welcome to walk right out and call [a lawyer]." After Williams announced that the interview was finished, Bassignani prolonged it by asking questions for approximately ten additional minutes. After about two and a half hours, Bassignani walked out of the conference room without being arrested. The government concedes that Bassignani was not given the Miranda warnings.

B

A grand jury indicted Bassignani on one count of distributing images of child pornography and one count of possessing images of child pornography. Bassignani faces five to twenty years in prison for the first count and up to ten years on the second count. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1)-(2).

In a pretrial motion filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Bassignani moved to suppress his statements during the interrogation, the Window Washers program found in his lunch pail and car, and the evidence found on the Tellabs computers. He challenged the admissibility of his statements on the ground that he was "in custody" for Miranda purposes and had not been given the four required warnings. He also argued that the evidence found in his car and on the Tellabs computer should be suppressed based on the mistaken address contained in the warrant.

The district court reviewed "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation" and concluded that "the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes." Accordingly, it granted Bassignani's motion to suppress the statements and the evidence found in the lunch pail. The district court denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Bassignani's Tellabs computer and in his car.

The United States timely appealed, challenging the district court's determination that Bassignani was "in custody" for Miranda purposes. The government also contended that the district court erred by not explicitly putting the burden of proof on Bassignani to show that he was in custody. The government did not challenge the district court's suppression of the evidence found in Bassignani's lunch pail.

II

Before determining whether Bassignani was in custody for Miranda purposes, we must resolve a disputed threshold issue: the appropriate standard of review.

Bassignani claims that the government is challenging the district court's "factual determinations," findings which should be reviewed for "clear error." In response, the United States contends that "[w]hile it is true that factual findings are reviewed for clear error, whether a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
122 cases
  • Tekoh v. Cnty. of L. A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • August 31, 2017
    ...are present: (1) the suspect is in custody, and (2) the suspect is interrogated by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bassignani , 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th 2009) ; United States v. Kim , 292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2002). As observed in Smith v. Clark , 804 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir.......
  • Delacruz v. Ndoh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 19, 2019
    ...in a "police-dominated atmosphere." United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 885 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, it is undisputed that Mosqueda telephoned Delacruz and asked if he was willing to come to Child Welfare Service......
  • United States v. Imm
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 31, 2014
    ...Here, the district court concluded that IMM was not in custody. We review the “in custody” determination de novo. United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir.2009) (“[A] district court's ‘in custody’ determination is a mixed question of law and fact warranting de novo review.” (......
  • State v. Quigley, s. 2015AP681–CR
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2016
    ...time, though, the tone of the interview with Melichar was not confrontational or accusatory. See United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir.2009). It was conversational. See Dyer v. Hornbeck, 706 F.3d 1134, 1140–41 (9th Cir.2013) (“We do not read the transcript of the interroga......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...was aware he had such freedom. Potter, 66 Cal.App.5th at 539-40; Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th at 1162; see U.S. v. Bassignani (9th Cir.2009) 575 F.3d 879, 886 ("[w]e have consistently held that a [D] is not in custody when officers tell him that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at an......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...94 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1996)—Ch. 5-C, §2.2.2(4)(a) U.S. v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(1)(b) U.S. v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 58 A.L.R.6th 823 (9th Cir. 2009)—Ch. 5-C, §2.1.1(1) U.S. v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 28 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 127 (9th Cir. 1989)—Ch. 4-......
  • The role of the federal judge under the constitution: some perspectives from the Ninth Circuit.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 33 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...OFFICIAL RULES OF THE NFL, supra note 40, R.15, [section] 9. (97.) Id. (emphasis removed). (98.) See, e.g., United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo whether an individual was "in custody" under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). (99.) See, e.g......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT