U.S. v. McKinley
| Citation | 228 F.Supp.2d 1158 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CR.01-291-BR.,CR.01-291-BR. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Leroy McKINLEY; Tony Gilbert, Jr.; Angelo Fuentes, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Michael W. Mosman, United States Attorney, Billy J. Williams, Assistant United State Attorney, Portland, for the United States.
Kristin L. Winemiller, Tennyson & Winemiller, Portland, for Defendant Ronald Leroy McKinley.
Steven T. Wax, Federal Public Defender, Ellen Pitcher, Gerald Needham, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Portland, for Defendant Tony Gilbert, Jr.
James D. Lang, Portland, for Defendant Angelo Fuentes.
Defendants Ronald Leroy McKinley, Tony Gilbert, Jr., and Angelo Fuentes are charged in a three-count Indictment with Murder in the First Degree in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111, Felony Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111, and Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2111. The crimes allegedly occurred July 11, 2001, on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. All Defendants are enrolled members of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, and the victim, Michael Saludo, was an Indian male. In the course of a joint homicide investigation by Warm Springs law enforcement authorities and federal agents, Warm Springs police took McKinley into custody pursuant to Warm Springs Tribal Code § 202.335 for "investigative detention" on the morning of Friday, July 13, 2001, and held him at the Warm Springs Correctional Facility (Correctional Facility), which is adjacent to the Warm Springs Police Department (Police Department). The investigators also seized physical evidence in the course of various consent searches.
McKinley moves to suppress the statements he made on July 13 and July 15, 2001, after Warm Springs police detained him. McKinley also seeks to exclude certain physical evidence the investigators seized in the joint investigation.1 McKinley asserts investigators violated 18 U.S.C. § 3501 when they elicited his statements more than six hours after Warm Springs authorities detained him. McKinley also argues the investigators violated Fed R.Crim.P. 5(a) when they failed to take him promptly to a federal magistrate judge for arraignment after his "arrest." McKinley contends these alleged statutory violations tainted his consents to DNA testing, to the search of his bedroom, and to the search of his duffel bag. McKinley also asserts investigators searched his duffel bag before obtaining his consent. Consequently, McKinley also seeks to suppress the following physical evidence: (1) his blue jeans seized from Rosa Chiquito's home pursuant to her oral and written consent; (2) his duffel bag (which contained items belonging to the victim) seized from Chiquito's home and searched pursuant to McKinley's written consent dated July 15, 2001; (3) the blood-stained Nike shoes seized pursuant to a federal search warrant from McKinley's bedroom in his mother's house; and (4) a white, blood-stained T-shirt obtained at the Warm Springs Market based on information gleaned from McKinley's interview on July 15, 2001.
The government denies McKinley was "arrested" for purposes of Rule 5(a) and § 3501 when Warm Springs authorities detained him on July 13, 2001. According to the government, neither Rule 5(a) nor § 3501 were triggered until a federal arrest warrant was served on McKinley the next day, which was Saturday, July 14, 2001. The government contends, therefore, McKinley's statement made on July 13 is not subject to the six-hour limitation of § 3501 because the government had no duty to present McKinley to a federal magistrate judge on July 13. The government also asserts the six-hour limitation does not apply to McKinley's July 15 statement because the government did not unreasonably delay bringing McKinley before a federal magistrate judge for arraignment promptly after the weekend. The government further maintains McKinley's statements were otherwise voluntary, the physical evidence obtained with McKinley's consent is admissible, and the contents of McKinley's duffel bag are also admissible because the bag was not searched until McKinley consented to the search.
For the reasons that follow, McKinley's Motion to Suppress Evidence (# 54) is DENIED.
The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 10-11, 2002, and heard oral argument on January 15-16, 2002. The events pertinent to McKinley's Motion occurred between the early morning hours of Wednesday, July 11, 2001, when Michael Saludo was murdered, and the following Monday, July 16, 2001, when McKinley was arraigned in the United States District Court in Portland, Oregon, approximately 100 miles from the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. The general sequence of events for purposes of this Motion follows:2
Thursday, July 12, 2001
• Michael Saludo's sister reported him missing to the Police Department around 3:00 a.m. Saludo was last seen early on Wednesday leaving a party with the three Defendants. Saludo was driving his sister's Monte Carlo.
• Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies found Saludo's vehicle in an irrigation canal off the Reservation around 2:30 p.m.
• At approximately 2:50 p.m., Saludo's mother reported she found her son's crutches on the Reservation by Lower Dry Creek campground.
• At 7:00 p.m., Michael Saludo's body was found with multiple stab wounds at the Lower Dry Creek campground.
• By evening, Warm Springs police investigators led by Supervisory Criminal Investigator James Cole (Detective Cole) and federal agents led by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Eric Barnhart were fully engaged in a joint, cooperative homicide investigation that involved all three Defendants, multiple witnesses, and several potential crime scenes.
• At approximately 10:30 a.m., Warm Springs police picked up Gilbert and took him to the Police Department where he was interviewed until approximately 1:30 p.m. Gilbert implicated McKinley and Fuentes in the homicide.
• Meanwhile, at approximately 10:43 a.m., another Warm Springs police official picked up McKinley at his residence and took him to the Police Department. At 10:48 a.m., Warm Springs officials confined McKinley in the Correctional Facility for a 24-hour "investigative detention" pursuant to Tribal Code.
• The daily arraignment calendar for the United States District Court commenced at 1:30 p.m. in Portland, approximately 100 miles away.
• Fuentes was taken into custody mid-afternoon for "investigative detention."
• Agent Barnhart and Detective Cole interviewed McKinley at the Police Department from 5:18 to 6:55 p.m. McKinley denied any involvement in Saludo's murder.
• At approximately 10:30 a.m., federal arrest warrants were issued in Portland for McKinley and Fuentes. With the permission of Chief Tribal Judge Lola Sohappy, the arrest warrants were served at the Correctional Facility. McKinley was served at 10:50 a.m.
• At approximately 10:30 a.m., while investigators interviewed Gilbert for the second time, FBI Agent John Shepard contacted McKinley at the Police Department for a polygraph. McKinley confessed to his involvement in the homicide.
• All three Defendants were transported from Warm Springs to the United States District Court in Portland and were arraigned.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(a) provides:
[A]n officer making an arrest under a warrant ... or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available federal magistrate judge....
As noted, McKinley contends he was arrested by 11:00 a.m. on Friday, July 13, 2001. He argues, therefore, the authorities were required to take him before the nearest available federal magistrate judge in Portland, a distance of about 100 miles from the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, for arraignment that afternoon. McKinley further asserts there were adequate police resources and time to allow for his transport to Portland that afternoon despite the ongoing homicide investigation.
Section 3501 sets statutory standards for determining the voluntariness of confessions. McKinley challenges the timing of his statements relative to his arraignment, but he does not assert his statements or oral and written consents to search otherwise were involuntary or the product of unlawful police coercion. The Court, therefore, focuses only on the following portions of § 3501 that are pertinent to the issues raised by McKinley in his Motion:
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States ... a confession ... shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given....
(b) The trial judge in determining the issue of voluntariness shall take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession, including... the time elapsing between arrest and arraignment of the defendant making the confession, if it was made after arrest and before arraignment....
(c) In any criminal prosecution by the United States ..., a confession made or given by a person who is a defendant therein, while such person was under arrest or other detention in the custody of any law-enforcement officer or law-enforcement agency, shall not be inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a magistrate ... if such confession is ... made voluntarily ... and if such confession was made or given by such person within six hours immediately following his arrest or other detention: Provided, That the time limitation contained in this subsection shall not apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person before such magistrate or other officer beyond such six-hour period is found by the trial judge to be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the distance to be traveled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Harrold
...Harris and Harrold into custody and transport them to Jackson, the delay until Monday was not unreasonable. See United States v. McKinley, 228 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1167 (D.Or.2002) (delay in initial appearance from Friday to Monday was reasonable when transporting the defendant to an available m......
-
U.S. v. McKinley.
...District Court INITAL APPEARANCE U.S. v. McKinley, 228 F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.Or. 2002). A defendant charged with murder was arrested and detained at 10:40 a.m. on Friday and was not arraigned until the following Monday. The district court held that the delay in bringing the defendant before a m......
-
U.S. v. McKinley.
...District Court ACCESS TO COURT U.S. v. McKinley, 228 F.Supp.2d 1158 (D.Or. 2002). A defendant charged with murder was arrested and detained at 10:40 a.m. on Friday and was not arraigned until the following Monday. The district court held that the delay in bringing the defendant before a mag......