United States v. Clark
| Decision Date | 13 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Court File No. 15-cr-154 (DWF/LIB) (1) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. William Andrew Clark, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Defendant William Andrew Clark's ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 23]. 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 July 7, 2015, regarding Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 23]. The parties declined the opportunity for supplemental briefing and the motion was taken under advisement on July 7, 2015.
For reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 23], be DENIED.
On May 12, 2015, Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153(a), 2241(a)(1), and 2246(2)(A); and one count of sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151, 1153(a), 2242(2)(B), and 2246(2)(A). (Indictment [Docket No. 1]).
On May 18, 2015, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jonathan Tjernagel ("SA Tjernagel") met with, interviewed, and then ultimately arrested Defendant at the Red Lake Tribal Criminal Justice Complex ("the Complex").
Defendant had come to the Complex to meet with the registered sex offender compliance officer. As Defendant was leaving that meeting, SA Tjernagel approached Defendant in the lobby and asked to talk with him. At that time, SA Tjernagel had in his possession a federal warrant for Defendant's arrest, but SA Tjernagel did not reveal that information to Defendant when asking Defendant to speak with him. SA Tjernagel was dressed in pants, a polo shirt, and a vest. SA Tjernagel was armed, but his weapon was not visible. Defendant agreed to speak with SA Tjernagel.
To SA Tjernagel, Defendant appeared to have a slight limp but otherwise appeared to be physically sound. Because Defendant appeared to be limping, SA Tjernagel asked Defendant if he would like to have a seat on the one of the benches in the Complex's lobby during the interview. Defendant agreed and the two moved to a bench in the lobby for their conversation.
The Complex is a multi-use facility. In addition to being the headquarters for the Red Lake Police Department, the Complex houses the Tribal Court, the Tribal Court Clerk, the Red Lake Detention Center, the Red Lake Tribal Defenders Office, and the offices of the Red Lake Registered Sex Offender Compliance Officer. The lobby of the Complex is a public area, with three sets of double doors leading from the lobby to the Red Lake Detention Center, the Tribal Court, and the Red Lake Police Department, respectively.
SA Tjernagel's conversation with Defendant, which SA Tjernagel recorded, was polite. SA Tjernagel did not make any threats or promises to Defendant. SA Tjernagel did not at any time before or during the conversation touch Defendant, give Defendant any orders, or restrict Defendant's movement. To SA Tjernagel, Defendant appeared to understand the questions SA Tjernagel was asking. Defendant also appeared to be sober and to be otherwise mentally sound. SA Tjernagel was aware that Defendant, who was at the time sixty-six (66) years of age, had multiple previous contacts with the criminal justice system, including ones resulting in previous state and federal convictions. SA Tjernagel did not read Defendant the Miranda warnings prior to or during the interview as he did not consider Defendant to then be in custody. The interview lasted approximately three minutes and twenty seconds. (See Gov't Ex. 1).
At the end of the interview, SA Tjernagel turned the recorder off and placed it in his pocket, as he wanted his hands free when he informed Defendant that he had a federal warrant to arrest Defendant. SA Tjernagel then arrested Defendant.
On June 26, 2015, Defendant filed the present Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 23].
Defendant moves the Court for an order suppressing all statements he made on May 18, 2015. (See Def.'s Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 23]).
As initially drafted, Defendant's motion sought to suppress statements Defendant made both before and after SA Tjernagel arrested him. (See Id.). In its Response to the Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 25], the Government represented that Defendant had not made any statements to law enforcement after his arrest. (Gov't's Response to Def.'s Motion, [Docket No. 25], 1). No evidence was presented at the motion hearing indicating that Defendant madeany statements after being arrested. Accordingly, to the extent that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 25], was directed at statements Defendant made after he was arrested by SA Tjernagel, the Court recommends DENYING Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Docket No. 25], as moot.
Defendant also seeks to suppress the statements he made prior to being arrested by SA Tjernagel. In his motion papers, Defendant generically asserted that any statements he made were the product of custodial interrogation and were given without being first warned of his Miranda rights and, in any event, were not given voluntarily.
"[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) (citing Miranda 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) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444).
Statements that are the product of a non-custodial interrogation may also be suppressed if the statements are not made voluntarily. See United States v. Brave Heart, 397 F.3d 1035, 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (). "In considering whether a confession was voluntary, the determinative question is whether the confession was extracted by threats, violence, or promises (express or implied), such that the defendant's will was overborne and his or her capacity for self-determination was critically impaired." United States v. Pierce, 152 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir. 1998).
Defendant contends that the Court must suppress the statements he made during the interview because SA Tjernagel did not read him the Miranda warnings. 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 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444). It is undisputed that SA Tjernagel did not read Defendant the Miranda warnings and that his interview of Defendant constituted interrogation or its functional equivalent. Accordingly, the key issue is whether Defendant was in custody for the purposes of Miranda when he was interviewed by SA Tjernagel. See United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2002) ( ).
The Eighth Circuit has explained:
Id., at 500-01 (internal citations omitted). "These factors, however, are not exclusive, and custody cannot be resolved merely be counting up the number of factors on each side of the balance and rendering a decision accordingly." United States v. Flores-Sandoval, 474 F.3d 1142, 1147 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotations marks omitted). "The analysis depends upon a review of the totality of the circumstances, and [t]he ultimate test is whether a reasonable person in that position would have felt free to end the interview." United States v. Sanchez, 676 F.3d at 630-31 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted, alteration in Sanchez).
When beginning his interview, SA Tjernagel did not tell Defendant that he was not under...
To continue reading
Request your trial