United States v. Beaulieu

• Decision Date: 21 July 2021
• Docket Number: Court File 20-cr-235 (ECT/LIB)
• Citation: United States v. Beaulieu, Court File 20-cr-235 (ECT/LIB) (D. Minn. Jul 21, 2021)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SEAN JOSEPH BEAULIEU, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SEAN JOSEPH BEAULIEU, Defendant.

Court File No. 20-cr-235 (ECT/LIB)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 21, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LEO I BRISBOIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon DefendantSean Joseph Beaulieu's (“Defendant”)Motion to Suppress Statements Admissions, and Answers, [DocketNo. 27].This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1.The Court held a motions hearing on May 25, 2021, regarding the parties' pretrial motions at which the parties requested the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing on the present motion.The supplemental briefing was completed on July 8, 2021, and this Court took Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions and Answers, [DocketNo. 27], under advisement on July 8, 2021.^[1]

For reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [DocketNo. 27], be DENIED.

I.BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

A.Background

Defendant is charged with one count of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3),1151, and1153(a), and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(6), 1151, and 1153(a).(Indictment [DocketNo. 1]).

B.Facts

The record presently before the Court indicates that Special Agent Eric Hellekson(“SA Hellekson”) became involved in this case after an agent at the FBI Bemidji office requested that SA Hellekson interview Defendant at the Sanford Health Hospital in Fargo, North Dakota.(Tr. [Docket No. 44], at 15).Defendant was admitted to the emergency department at the Sanford Health Hospital on June 20, 2020, for trauma evaluation following an altercation that occurred on the Red Lake Indian Reservation.(Def.'sEx. 6).^[2] On June 22, 2020, SA Hellekson and Task Force Officer Steven Long(“TFO Long”) interviewed Defendant at the Sanford Health Hospital emergency room.(Id. at 15-17).

Prior to conducting the interview, SA Hellekson went to the nurses' station to determine whether it was alright to proceed with the interview of Defendant.(Id. at 16).SA Hellekson was informed that it was okay to proceed with the interview.(Id. at 16, 23).SA Hellekson was not informed, and was not aware, of the extent of Defendant's injuries, the treatment he was receiving, or why he remained in the emergency room.(Id. at 23-24, 28-29).However, SA Hellekson was aware that Defendant had previously been airlifted from the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota to the Sanford Health Hospital in Fargo, North Dakota.(Id. at 23).

The interview took place in a standard emergency room, which was separated by a door from the people working in the emergency room.(Id. at 16-17).SA Hellekson, TFO Long, and Defendant were the only people in the room while the interview occurred.(Id. at 17).Defendant was not shackled during the interview.(Id.).SA Hellekson observed that Defendant had facial injuries, including a swollen face and left eye.(Id. at 24-25, see also,Def.'sExs. 1-4).^[3]

Before beginning the interview, SA Hellekson and TFO Long introduced themselves to Defendant, showed him their credentials, and they informed Defendant why they were at the hospital and that they wanted to talk to him.(Tr. [Docket No. 44], at 17).Next, at approximately 11:24 a.m. on June 22, 2020, SA Hellekson read Defendant his Miranda rights line-by-line from the FBI Advice of Rights form.^[4](Id. at 17-19, 21).In relevant part, the FBI Advice of Rights form contains the following text:

YOUR RIGHTS

Before we ask you any questions you must understand your rights.

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can be used against you in court.

You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions.

You have the right to have a lawyer with you during the questioning.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

CONSENT

I have read this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are.At this time, I am willing to answer questions without a lawyer present.

(Gov't'sEx. 2).^[5] After informing Defendant of his Miranda rights, SA Hellekson asked Defendant if he had any questions.(Tr. [Docket No. 44], at 18).SA Hellekson then instructed Defendant to sign the FBI Advice of Rights form if he wanted to talk to the interviewers but to leave the signature line blank if he did not wish to speak with the interviewers.(Id. 18-19).At 11:27 a.m., Defendant signed the FBI Advice of Rights form thereby indicating that he wished to speak with the interviewers.(Id. at 18-19, 21;Gov't'sEx. 2).

At approximately 11:28 a.m. on June 22, 2020, SA Hellekson began recording the interview and started questioning Defendant.^[6](Gov't's Ex. 1, at 00:00-00:30).^[7] During the June 22, 2020, interview, SA Hellekson questioned Defendant about an alleged assault that had occurred on the Red Lake Indian Reservation on June 20, 2020, during which, Defendant had sustained the injuries that caused him to be brought to the Sanford Health Hospital.(Gov't'sEx. 1).Defendant stated that prior to the assault, Tiffany, his cousin Rob Beaulieu, an unidentified male, and Defendant had been in a bedroom at Tiffany's residence.(Id. at 2:05-3:00, 6:15-7:05).Defendant further stated that Tiffany, Rob, and the unidentified male had been talking about “gang stuff, ” and that he must have gotten in the way because they assaulted him.(See, e.g., Id.at 3:053:35).Defendant also stated that he did not remember anyone having any weapons, and Defendant denied using any weapons during the assault or stabbing anyone.(Id. at 7:15-7:50).

The interview concluded at approximately 11:36 a.m. on June 22, 2020.(Id. at 8:05).Throughout the interview's recording, the interviewers can be heard maintaining a conversational tone without raising their voices to yell or threaten Defendant.(See,Gov't'sEx. 1).Likewise, Defendant maintained a conversational tone, and he was clearly cooperative and self-assured throughout the interview.(See, Id.).Defendant also responded appropriately and coherently to any questions presented.^[8](See, Id.).

II.DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS, AND ANSWERS [DocketNo. 27]

Defendant moves the Court for an Order suppressing the statements made by him to law enforcement during the June 22, 2020, interview conducted by law enforcement while Defendant was in the Sanford Health Hospital emergency room.(Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 46], at 1).

In support of his motion to suppress, Defendant contends that his statements made during the June 22, 2020, interview were involuntary due to his injuries.(See, Id. at 7-10).Defendant also contends that the Government has failed to demonstrate that Defendant's statements were knowing and intelligent because SA Hellekson only began recording the interview after Defendant had been informed of, and waived, his Miranda rights.(See, Id. at 9-10).Therefore, Defendant argues that his statements made during the June 22, 2020, interview should be suppressed.(Id. at 10).

A.Standard of Review

“[Miranda] prohibits the government from introducing into evidence statements made by the defendant during a custodial interrogation unless the defendant has been previously advised of his [F]ifth [A]mendment privilege against self-incrimination and right to an attorney.”United States v. Chipps,410 F.3d 438, 445(8th Cir.2005)(citingMiranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 444(1966)).Accordingly, Miranda warnings are required for official interrogations where a person has been “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way[.]”Stansbury v. California,511 U.S. 318, 322(1994)(quotingMiranda,384 U.S. at 444).

A defendant is entitled to a Miranda warning prior to custodial interrogation.Miranda,384 U.S. at 444-45.“Interrogation under Miranda includes not only express questioning but also its functional equivalent, such as ‘any word or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.'”United States v. Hull,419 F.3d 762, 767(8th Cir.2005)(quotingRhode Island v. Innis,466 U.S. 291, 300-01(1980)).Whether an incriminating response is sought by an officer is determined “from the perspective of the suspect” and not by the officer's actual intent.United States v. Richardson,427 F.3d 1128, 1132(8th Cir.2005).

A defendant may waive their rights, “provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.”Miranda,384 U.S. at 444.

B.Analysis

Defendant contends that all of his statements made during the June 22, 2020, interview were custodial and were not proceeded by a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights.(Mem. in Supp. [Docket No. 46], at 7-10).

As noted above, Miranda warnings are required for official interrogations where a person has been “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way[.]”Stansbury,511 U.S at 322(quotingMiranda,384 U.S. at 444).To be subject to suppression under Miranda, a statement must be made while in custody and in response to interrogation.United States v. McGlothen,556 F.3d 698, 701(8th Cir.2009)(citingUnited States v. Londondio,420 F.3d 777, 783(8th Cir.20...