United States v. Vreeland
Decision Date | 29 June 2012 |
Docket Number | 10–1034.,Nos. 10–1033,s. 10–1033 |
Citation | 684 F.3d 653 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Brent Michael VREELAND, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Scott Graham, Scott Graham PLLC, Portage, Michigan, for Appellant. Daniel Y. Mekaru, Assistant United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Scott Graham, Scott Graham PLLC, Portage, Michigan, for Appellant. Daniel Y. Mekaru, Assistant United States Attorney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.
Before: MARTIN and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and ANDERSON, District Judge.*
In these consolidated appeals, defendant Brent Vreeland appeals his convictions on two counts of making false oral and written statements to a federal probation officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) and (a)(3), and the revocation of his supervised release. This case presents the novel questions in this circuit of whether a defendant's false statements to a probation officer during the course of a monthly supervisory meeting are protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and whether such statements fall within the “judicial function exception” to prosecution set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b). We answer “no” to both questions and accordingly affirm.
In January 2005, Vreeland was convicted in federal district court of conspiracy to defraud the United States, stemming from a fraudulent check cashing scheme that spanned from 1999 to 2003. In August 2005, the district court sentenced him to thirteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay over $22,000 in restitution.
On February 9, 2008, while still on supervised release, Vreeland committed a home invasion and larceny in Kalamazoo, Michigan. His involvement was confirmed following an investigation and a June 2008 interview with a co-suspect, Rodney Russell, who implicated Vreeland in the crime. Russell, who initially lied to sheriff's authorities about his participation in the home invasion, was charged eventually with the crime and, in March 2009, pled guilty to second-degree home invasion in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court pursuant to a plea agreement requiring him to testify against Vreeland. At Vreeland's bench trial in the present case, Russell testified as to Vreeland's role, their disposal of some of the stolen items in a nearby pond, discussions about getting rid of the getaway vehicle, and their agreement at the time that they would deny knowing each other if questioned by authorities.
United States Probation Officer Nicholas Bobo, who was assigned to supervise Vreeland, testified at the trial about his investigation of the matter. On February 28, 2008, Officer Bobo spoke with a detective from the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department and learned that Vreeland's car was linked to a home invasion and that Vreeland was a suspect. Officer Bobo was aware that the detective had scheduled a meeting with Vreeland to discuss the incident. On March 10, 2008, Vreeland, accompanied by his attorney, appeared for an interview with the detective, but Vreeland refused to answer any questions.
The next day, Vreeland reported to Officer Bobo. Vreeland told Officer Bobo about the interview and informed him that he and Russell were suspects in the home invasion. Vreeland claimed, however, that he did not know Russell. Officer Bobo asked Vreeland what had happened to his grandmother's vehicle, a 1992 Oldsmobile previously noted on monthly supervision reports, and Vreeland indicated that he sold it to a junk yard.1 Officer Bobo directedhim to bring in documentation regarding the car, but Vreeland failed to do so. As a result, Vreeland was arrested for an alleged supervised release violation, but not before Officer Bobo asked him to sign a waiver of hearing on a modification of the terms of his release. Vreeland told Officer Bobo that he needed to talk with his attorney and later responded that he would not sign the waiver.
On March 31, 2008, the day after his arrest, Officer Bobo received a telephone call from Vreeland's attorney, who indicated that he represented Vreeland but stated that he was not familiar with the federal legal system. On April 1, the attorney informed Officer Bobo that he no longer represented Vreeland. Officer Bobo understood this to mean that the attorney no longer represented Vreeland in any capacity whatsoever. New counsel was then appointed to represent Vreeland in federal court for the supervised release violation. At the conclusion of the hearing on April 10, 2008, the district court modified, but did not revoke, Vreeland's supervised release and placed him in a halfway house for five months.
Officer Bobo testified that between April and September of 2008, he had no further conversations with Vreeland about the home invasion. However, Officer Bobo was in continual contact with the investigating detectives, who submitted the case to the Kalamazoo County Prosecutor's Office for review. On August 22, 2008, the prosecutor's office advised Officer Bobo that it would not prosecute Vreeland. Officer Bobo thereafter began his own investigation and interviewed several witnesses, including Russell. He advised the United States Attorney's Office of his actions and stated that he would be submitting reports for another potential supervised release violation. Officer Bobo met with Vreeland on September 2, 2008, to review his conditions of supervised release and instructed Vreeland to report to him on a monthly basis at his office.
On October 3, 2008, Vreeland appeared at the probation office for his regular monthly meeting with Officer Bobo. By that time, Officer Bobo had concluded, based on his investigation, that Vreeland had violated his supervised release by committing the home invasion. After discussing other matters, Officer Bobo brought up the February 9, 2008, incident. He did not tell Vreeland in advance that he intended to question him about the alleged crime. Officer Bobo told Vreeland that he was a suspect in the home invasion and proceeded to ask him specific questions about the events of that night. Vreeland denied any knowledge of the incident and claimed that he did not know Russell. Officer Bobo then showed Vreeland two photographs of Russell taped to a blank piece of paper, but Vreeland again denied knowing him. Officer Bobo advised Vreeland that he had reason to believe that Vreeland knew Russell, that it was a violation of federal law to make a false statement to a federal officer, and that any false statements would be turned over for further investigation. Still, Vreeland disavowed any familiarity with Russell, and Officer Bobo asked him if he would be willing to make a written statement to that effect. Vreeland agreed and wrote on the piece of paper with the attached photos of Russell that Officer Bobo then asked Vreeland to make a second written statement that he had never attempted to contact Russell, and Vreeland agreed, writing, “I have never attempted to contact this individual [Russell] to my knowledge.” Both statements were initialed, signed, and dated by Vreeland, and Officer Bobo signed and dated the documents as a witness.
Officer Bobo testified that he did not advise Vreeland of his Miranda rights because Vreeland was not in custody or under arrest; the office door was open, and Vreeland was free to leave. According to Officer Bobo, Vreeland never invoked his right to remain silent or requested to speak to a lawyer, never indicated that he was represented by a lawyer, never acted confused, and did not refuse to answer any of the questions. Officer Bobo stated that he did not threaten Vreeland with arrest or revocation of his supervised release if he failed to answer his questions, and he further testified that if Vreeland had requested an attorney, he would have honored the request. At the conclusion of the meeting, Officer Bobo told Vreeland that he (Bobo) would be in contact with him, and Vreeland then left of his own accord.
Convinced that Vreeland was lying, Officer Bobo submitted a report to the U.S. Attorney. As a result, on April 23, 2009, Vreeland was indicted on two counts of making false oral and written statements to a federal probation officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) and (a)(3). In May 2009, an amended petition seeking revocation of Vreeland's supervised release was filed, alleging five violations of the general condition that “defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime.” 2
In October 2009, the district court conducted a combined bench trial and supervised release hearing. Numerous witnesses—including Russell, Officer Bobo, and county investigators—testified, but Vreeland did not take the witness stand. On November 12, 2009, the district court issued a written decision in which it found Vreeland guilty on both counts of the indictment and all five supervised-release violations. The court sentenced Vreeland to concurrent prison terms of twenty-four months for the false-statement convictions, and to a consecutive term of twenty-four months on the amended revocation petition. Vreeland timely appeals both judgments.
Prior to his bench trial, Vreeland moved to suppress his oral and written statements made to Officer Bobo on the ground that admission of the statements violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In its written decision, the district court addressed Vreeland's argument and denied the motion, finding Officer Bobo's recitation of the facts and Russell's testimony to be credible. Specifically, the court determined that:
[Vreeland] was never in custody so as to implicate his Miranda rights. As Mr. Bobo testified, he had received a telephone...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Parker
...that Miranda would bar the government from introducing evidence of threats made by Parker during the interview. See United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 660–61 (6th Cir.) (false statements made during interview were not subject to suppression under Miranda because statements were themse......
-
United States v. Bankston
...(2) his statements were submitted to a judge or magistrate, and (3) his statements were made in that proceeding.” United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting United States v. McNeil, 362 F.3d 570, 572 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Unit......
-
United States ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hosp.
...A court may look to legislative history only when "a plain reading leads to ambiguous or unreasonable results." United States v. Vreeland , 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Chrysler Corp. v. C.I.R ., 436 F.3d 644, 654 (6th Cir. 2006). Here, a plain reading of t......
-
United States v. Miller
...reading leads to ambiguous or unreasonable results, [we] may look to legislative history to interpret a statute.” United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Choice, 201 F.3d at 840. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the leg......
-
FALSE STATEMENTS AND FALSE CLAIMS
...76. Lee v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 77. Bankston, 820 F.3d at 229 (quoting United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012)). 78. Compare United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the § 1001(b) exception prot......
-
False statements and false claims
...2004) (discussing § 1001(c)’s limitations on a § 1001 prosecution). 70. Bankston , 820 F.3d at 229 (quoting United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012)). 71. Compare United States v. Oliver, 41 F.4th 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022) (reaffirming the Ninth Circuit’s position that......
-
False Statements and False Claims
...Lee v. U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 76. Bankston , 820 F.3d at 229 (quoting United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 662 (6th Cir. 2012)). 77. Compare United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the § 1001(b) exception protect......
-
PERJURY
...(holding that the Fifth Amendment “does not endow the person who testifies with a license to commit perjury”); United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 661 (6th Cir. 2015) (finding that the Fifth Amendment cannot be invoked to protect against perjury charges); United States v. Thomas, 612......