U.S. v. Beraun-Panez, BERAUN-PANE
Decision Date | 15 October 1987 |
Docket Number | D,BERAUN-PANE,No. 86-3047,86-3047 |
Citation | 830 F.2d 127 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ricardoefendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Warren S. Derbidge, Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jeffrey J. Hepworth, and John C. Hohnhorst, Twin Falls, Idaho, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; Harold L. Ryan, District Judge, Presiding.
Before FLETCHER, FERGUSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
The opinion published at 812 F.2d 578 (9th Cir.1987) is modified as follows:
Delete the paragraph on page 581, second column that begins: "The physical environment,": and ends at the top of page 582, first column with "... subject to abuse." Id. and replace it with the following:
Beraun-Panez was interrogated on the Idaho range, where he was performing his duties as a cattle ranger. The district court found that the physical environment was not inherently oppressive, as it was familiar to the defendant. This finding is not clearly erroneous. Nonetheless, like the district court, we conclude that this factor does not change our view that the interrogation was custodial. By keeping Beraun-Panez isolated from other people, the officers contributed to the custodial nature of the interrogation. The Supreme Court in Miranda noted that separating a subject from others, who might lend moral support to a person questioned and thereby prevent inculpatory statements, was a technique of psychological coercion. 384 U.S. 436 at 449-50, 455, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1617, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); cf. Berkemer, 468 U.S. 420 at 438, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3149, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) () . When Beraun-Panez's co-worker approached on horseback, Agent Hughes told Deputy Webb to intercept him. Webb stopped the co-worker about sixty feet from the pickup, and after a brief conversation, the co-worker returned to his work. The district court did not clearly err in finding that this incident contributes to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Griffin
...(suspect in custody when questioned at place of employment); United States v. Beraun-Panez, 812 F.2d 578, 582, as amended 830 F.2d 127, 127-28 (9th Cir.1987) (suspect in custody when questioned on isolated range near where he was herding cattle). Conversely, interrogation which occurs at th......
-
J.D.B. v. North Carolina
...there are already lower court decisions that take this approach. See United States v. Beraun–Panez, 812 F.2d 578, 581, modified 830 F.2d 127 (C.A.9 1987) ("reasonable person who was an alien"); In re Jorge D., 202 Ariz. 277, 280, 43 P.3d 605, 608 (App.2002) (age, maturity, and experience); ......
-
State v. McKenna
...578, 580 (9th Cir.) ("Although not physically bound, [the suspect] was subjected to psychological restraints just as binding."), modified, 830 F.2d 127 (1987). This is so because the "likely effect on a suspect of being placed under guard during questioning, or told to remain in the sight o......
-
Thompson v. Runnels
...not be free to leave’ ”) (quoting United States v. Hudgens, 798 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir.1986) (alteration omitted)), modified by 830 F.2d 127 (9th Cir.1987). Any uncertainty regarding whether Thompson was in custody would not explain the delay in complying with Miranda. 13. Justice Kennedy......