United States v. Little
| Decision Date | 21 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 20-1258 KG |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CODY ALLAN LITTLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Amended Motion to Suppress, filed June 24, 2020. (Doc. 30). Defendant seeks to suppress statements he made during custodial interrogations on October 19, 2019, and January 25, 2020, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The United States filed a response on July 8, 2020, (Doc. 33), and an amended response on August 10, 2020, (Doc. 44). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 11, 2020. (Doc. 45) (Clerk's Minutes). The Court also reviewed the audio and video evidence submitted by the United States in its entirety. (Doc. 45) (Exhibits 1-4, 6, 10, 13). Having considered the Motion to Suppress, the accompanying briefing, the evidence, and counsel's arguments at the evidentiary hearing, the Court denies the Motion to Suppress.
On October 15, 2019, Lovington police officers were called to 502 W. Tyler, Lovington, New Mexico, regarding a domestic violence incident. Transcript of August 11, 2020, evidentiary hearing (Tr.)1 at 14, 39-40; Exhibit 1 (October 15, 2019, audio of 911 call). Defendant's roommate informed officers that Defendant had yelled at her, choked her, and discharged a firearm inside the residence. Exhibit 2 (October 15, 2019, lapel camera footage). After speaking with the alleged victim, Officer Stephanie Dowell, Officer Michael Cabello, and Detective Jeremiah Pillow, approached Defendant who was on the porch of the residence. Tr. at 15-18; Exhibit 2. Officer Dowell placed Defendant in handcuffs and read him his Miranda rights. Tr. at 16-19. Defendant stated he understood those rights and agreed to speak with the officers. Exhibit 2. He stated he put his hands on the victim's face, he might have had his hands on her neck, and he did not have a firearm but he lit a firecracker inside of the house. Tr. at 21-24; Exhibit 2. The officers obtained a search warrant for the residence and, in executing it, found ammunition and a Ruger Old Army revolver, which was missing one round. Tr. at 48-49.
On October 19, 2019, Officer Dowell and Detective Pillow knocked on the door at 502 W. Tyler to arrest Defendant on additional state charges, including being a felon in possession of a firearm. Tr. at 41-42; Exhibit 3 (October 19, 2019, lapel camera footage). Defendant was placed in handcuffs and driven to the police station in a police car. Exhibit 3. Detective Pillow advised Defendant not to say anything because he had not yet given Defendant his Miranda warnings. Id.
At the station, Detective Pillow conducted a video recorded interview of Defendant starting at 10:57 a.m. Exhibit 4 (October 19, 2019, recorded interview of Defendant) and Exhibit 5 (transcript of October 19, 2019, interview of Defendant). Detective Pillow recounted what was found at Defendant's residence and then advised Defendant of his Miranda rights and askedDefendant if he understood those rights. Defendant stated "Yeah, I do." Exhibit 5 at 3. The following exchange then occurred:
Id. at 3-4; Exhibit 4 (while the transcript states "INAUDIBLE position and," the video shows Defendant saying "I'm in possession of"). Defendant confirmed firing the firearm but denied any involvement in stealing it. Exhibit 4. The interview lasted eight minutes. Id. Detective Pillow was armed but in plain clothes and conducted the interview alone. Tr. at 47-48. Defendant was handcuffed with his hands in front of him throughout the interview. Tr. at 48; Exhibit 4.
On January 15, 2020, officers were called to 1308 W. Tyler, Lovington, New Mexico, in reference to a shooting. Tr. at 53-54. Officers learned the same victim from the October 2019 incident and her boyfriend, George, were approached by Defendant outside the residence, and that Defendant pointed a small black firearm at George's head. Exhibit 6 (January 15, 2020, lapel camera footage). George began to walk backwards out of the driveway and Defendant pointed the firearm at George's legs and fired one round. Id. George was not hit and officersrecovered a bullet casing in the area where Defendant had allegedly been standing. Id. The United States asserts that officers later learned Defendant had taken a Springfield, Model XDE with serial number HE913528 from a vehicle parked near the residence. (Exhibit 8) (still photo of doorbell camera video showing Defendant opening the door of a vehicle on the property).
About 9:30 p.m. on January 25, 2020, Officer Cabello located Defendant walking along W. Tyler Ave., drew his firearm, and commanded Defendant to raise his hands and drop to his knees. Tr. at 25-30; Exhibit 9 (January 25, 2020, arrest report); Exhibit 13 (January 25, 2020, lapel camera footage). Defendant complied and was handcuffed. Tr. at 28-29. Officer Cabello located a Springfield Model XDE 9mm pistol with serial number HE913528 in the yard of 818 W. Tyler Ave., less than 300 feet from where Defendant was arrested. Exhibit 9.
At the station, Detective Pillow conducted another video recorded interview of Defendant. He advised Defendant of his Miranda rights and asked Defendant:
Exhibit 10 (January 25, 2020, recorded interview of Defendant); Exhibit 11 at 3 (). Defendant also stated the firearm was a "9mm ... Springfield Armory XD," and he told Detective Pillow that he took it from a vehicle that belonged to a family member, he shot at George's legs but was not sure if he had hit him, and he tossed the firearm when he saw the officer. Exhibit 11 at 4-8. The interview lasted14 minutes, Detective Pillow was armed but in plain clothes, and no one else was present. Defendant was in handcuffs with his hands in front of him during the interview. Tr. at 54-56; Exhibit 10.
At the August 11, 2020, evidentiary hearing, Officer Cabello and Detective Pillow testified, and the Court found their testimony credible. The Court admitted the United States' Exhibits 1-13 without objection, and the United States played portions of the audio and video exhibits. See (Doc. 45). The Court also independently listened to and watched the entirety of the audio and video exhibits submitted by the United States.
The Fifth Amendment states that no individual "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V. As interpreted by Miranda, the Fifth Amendment requires that an individual subject to custodial interrogation be informed clearly and unequivocally: (1) that he "has the right to remain silent;" (2) that "anything said can and will be used against the individual in court;" (3) that "he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation;" and (4) "that if he is indigent[,] a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." 384 U.S. at 471. "Under Miranda, law enforcement officers must advise a suspect who is subjected to custodial interrogation that he has the right to remain silent, that statements can be used against him, that he has the right to counsel, and that he has the right to have counsel appointed." United States v. McCluskey, 893 F.Supp.2d 1117, 1138 (D.N.M. 2012); see also Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) ().
An individual in custody may waive Fifth Amendment protections if the decision to do so is done "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. The Government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that an individual's waiver of Miranda rights was both knowing and voluntary. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979). In reviewing an individual's decision to waive constitutional rights, the Court must examine "the surrounding circumstances and the entire course of police conduct with respect to the suspect." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985). In addition, the Court must consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case, "including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused." United States v. Burson, 531 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2008).
"On a motion to suppress, the district court must assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to give to the evidence presented; the inferences the district court draws from that evidence and testimony are entirely within its discretion." United States v. Goebel, 959 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted); United States v. Cortez, 965 F.3d 827, 833 n.4 (10th Cir. 2020). "Judging the credibility of the witnesses, determining the weight to be given to evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences and conclusions from the evidence are within the province of the district court." United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir. 1998). Factors beyond a witness's demeanor and tone of voice may weigh in a judge's decision to find that witness's testimony credible, including "[d]ocuments or objective evidence [that] may contradict the witness' story; or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial