United States v. Velazquez
| Decision Date | 06 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 6:17-mj-00094-MJS-1 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCO VELAZQUEZ, JR., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
(Doc. No. 10.)
Defendant Francisco Velazquez, Jr., is charged with three misdemeanor counts stemming from an incident in the Yosemite National Park campground known as Camp Four. He moves to suppress statements that he made while handcuffed and under questioning by National Park Service rangers. The rangers, who were responding to reports of gunfire, did not give a Miranda warning, and the court must decide whether the public-safety exception to the Miranda rule permitted any of their questioning. The parties have fully briefed the issues, and the court has heard argument on the motions.1 The court will grant in part and deny in part the defendant's motion to suppress.
Shortly after midnight on September 13, 2017, two women came to the Yosemite Law Enforcement Office and reported that they had fled their tent in Camp Four after hearing gunshots and yelling.2 Rangers J. Wentz, B. Bonner, and T. Healey responded to Camp Four, carrying long guns and with body-mounted cameras activated. Shortly after the rangers reached the campground, they encountered the defendant seated at his campsite and asked him whether he had heard a gunshot or other noise. The defendant said he had not, and the rangers left.
Over the next few minutes, the rangers searched Camp 4, looking for evidence of a disturbance. The campground, however, appeared calm, which did not square with the report of gunfire that they had received. If there had been gunshots, "why wouldn't the 911 line be lit up for this," wondered Ranger Bonner.
Another ranger commented that the campground was "way too quiet."
Ranger Bonner stated in what sounded like a radio transmission that the rangers had received "a specific report about . . . four gunshots . . . and an individual screaming that he was going to kill someone," but, he said, "we're not seeing any commotion" and "nobody's heard anything so far."
The rangers then spoke to other park visitors, who were in their tents. In answer to a question from Ranger Bonner, a female visitor said that she had heard a disturbance. "I'm not sure what it was," she said, "but . . . another guy told me that they were throwing, like, cans into the fire." She added that the cans "were, like, exploding." She described the individual involved—a male matching the defendant's general description—and his location, which seemed to match the defendant's approximate location.
Other visitors also told the rangers that they had heard noises. One visitor told Ranger Healy that the noises "sounded like gunfire to him."
"Alright," Ranger Bonner said to the other rangers, "well let's go deal with that guy." He proposed that another ranger take the lead in questioning the defendant. "I'll watch your back and get this squared," he said. The rangers returned to the defendant's location. As the other rangers spoke to the defendant, Ranger Bonner walked around the campsite, illuminating it with his flashlight.
Rangers Healy and Wentz asked the defendant to turn off his music. Ranger Wentz then asked the defendant, "where are the guns?" The defendant, who appeared intoxicated, denied having firearms. Ranger Wentz asked the defendant whether he had identification and when defendant reached into his pockets, told him to "stop digging in [his] pockets." Ranger Wentz asked the defendant to "go ahead and put your hands behind your back," and he and another ranger handcuffed the defendant.
Ranger Bonner told the defendant, "we're going to check and make sure you don't have any weapons, okay?"
The defendant again denied having weapons and asked, "what did I do wrong?"
"We're just checking for now," answered Ranger Bonner.
"Okay—I mean, honestly, I'm sitting here, enjoying—this is my last day," continued the defendant.
"Hey," said Ranger Bonner to one of the other rangers,
Moments later, Ranger Wentz asked the defendant to "Go ahead and have a seat, bro—sit down." After removing the defendant's cell phone from his pocket at the defendant's request, the rangers helped the defendant take a seat.
The defendant thanked the rangers for their help, but said the situation was "kind of ridiculous."
"We got a report of gunfire, man—this is the way it's gonna go for now," said Ranger Wentz.
"Well, well—" said the defendant, "I, I could, I'll, I give you, I'll let you guys search whatever you want."
Ranger Bonner then asked the defendant whether he was here by himself. The defendant answered in the negative, explaining that he was with his girlfriend, who was in the tent behind him. Ranger Bonner then identified the girlfriend's tent.
"Dude—" said the defendant, "I, I, I swear to God on my life I have no guns."
"I understand," said Ranger Bonner. The defendant uttered a curse in response, and Ranger Bonner told him "We're just trying to get—we're just trying to put together the whole scene."
The defendant then began to describe his day: "It's my last day here," he reiterated, "and I'm sitting here by the fire."
"Alright," said Ranger Bonner. "Just—just understand we're trying to put together all the puzzle pieces here," he said.
"I understand, okay?" said the defendant. "As soon as you guys figure it out, [the handcuffs] will be off, right?" he continued—"'cause I haven't done anything wrong."
Ranger Wentz then inquired whether Ranger Bonner had adequately frisked the defendant. Ranger Wentz appears to have concluded that the defendant had yet to be adequately frisked; he asked the defendant to stand up and checked him for weapons.
"You guys can search my tent—" said the defendant, "you can search my truck that's in the parking lot, too." Seconds later, he continued: "You guys—I, I, I give you full permission; I have no firearms."
Rangers Bonner and Wentz both posed questions to the defendant. Ranger Bonner asked the defendant whether his girlfriend was sleeping. Ranger Wentz asked the defendant, again, for his name. After Ranger Wentz finished frisking the defendant, Ranger Bonner asked the defendant whether "any of those bottles explode[d] when they were in the fire."
The defendant responded that he had a Coors Light bottle. He then began to talk about some other park visitors that apparently had irritated him. "But you know what?—they were doing this all night," he said. "Honestly, they were saying—I'll be honest—they were teaching Jihad over there the other night and I felt pissed off." Ranger Wentz asked the defendant to sit down, but the defendant kept talking: "Might want to let them know, this is America," he said.Shortly thereafter, the defendant told Ranger Wentz that a "Coors Light can" had burst in the fire, probably creating a loud noise.
The rangers' questioning continued for some time. The rangers did not give a Miranda warning. Eventually, the rangers escorted the defendant away. Defendant now faces three counts:
The single question facing the court is whether the public-safety exception permits admission into evidence of any of the defendant's statements made while in custody.3 Generally, under Miranda v. Arizona, "the prosecution may not use statements . . . stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant" unless a Miranda warning or equivalent is provided to the defendant before any questioning. 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). This exclusionary rule protects the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Miranda generally excludes statements made during custodial interrogation based on the idea "that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive"—and any statement by a defendant in such circumstances is inherently compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment "unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights." New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654 (1984).
The public-safety exception, established by the Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles, is a "narrow exception" to the Miranda rule that applies when "overriding considerations of public safety justify [an] officer's failure" to give Miranda warnings before questioning a suspect. Id. at 651. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held, "the need for answers to questions . . . outweighs the need for prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination." Id. at 657. In evaluating whether the public-safety exception applies to questioning by law enforcement officers, courts have considered: "(1) did the questioning officer face immediate danger, (2) was the question itself non-investigatory in nature, and (3) did the officer cease questioning the defendant or did the officer seek more information." United States v. Castaneda, 196 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1073 (D. Ariz. 2016); accord United States v. Williams, 842 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2016); United States v. Br...
To continue reading
Request your trial