US v. Pinto
| Decision Date | 29 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 86-00015-B. |
| Citation | 671 F. Supp. 41 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Carlo PINTO, Defendant. |
Jay P. McCloskey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Bangor, Me., for plaintiff.
Sandra Collier, Ellsworth, Me., for defendant.
Defendant Carlo Pinto is charged with attempting to possess cocaine, with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. Defendant moves to suppress statements made to a police officer on October 11, 1985, and physical evidence seized from defendant and from the vehicle in which he was a passenger.
On October 11, 1985, Detective Sergeant Michael Hall of the Brewer Police Department assisted in the execution of a warranted search of a residence in Brewer, Maine, during which cocaine, cash and drug paraphernalia were found. While the search was being conducted, the telephone rang 25 or 30 times. Hall answered most of the calls. Most of the callers asked for "Butch." One caller, who identified himself as "Junior," called three times for "Butch." On the third call from "Junior," Hall said that he was "Butch," and asked the caller what he wanted. The caller replied "I need an eighth O Z. I have some green for you." The caller said that he was at a Chevron gas station in Brewer. Hall told the caller to wait there, and again asked how much the caller wanted, to which the caller replied "eighth ounce." Hall said he would be there in a few minutes.
Hall drove to the gas station in an unmarked police car, followed at some distance by a uniformed officer in a marked car. Nearing the gas station, Hall observed a car, with its parking lights on, in a parking lot next to the gas station. Hall stopped his vehicle behind the parked car. Defendant exited from the passenger side of the parked car and walked back toward Hall. Hall said: "Junior?" Defendant replied: "Yeah." Hall said:
Hall and defendant got into Hall's car. As defendant sat down in the right front seat of the vehicle, he observed the police radio and instantly realized that he was in a police vehicle.
Hall identified himself as a police officer and told defendant that he was the person whom defendant had talked with on the phone earlier that evening. Defendant denied having made any phone call and said that he was just sitting in the parking lot "doing nothing."
At that point, Hall stated that he had enough information to charge defendant with attempting to traffic in narcotics.1 Hall advised defendant to cooperate, telling him that he was the "one friend" that defendant had, and that he was the one person standing between defendant and a long jail term.2 Hall then read defendant his Miranda rights.3 Defendant did not request an attorney.
Hall next inquired whether defendant "had anything on him." Defendant removed an item of drug paraphernalia from his jacket4 and handed it to Hall. Hall asked if there was any other drug paraphernalia in the car in which defendant had been sitting. Defendant stated that there was a tin box under the front seat.
While this conversation was taking place, less than a minute after defendant sat in Hall's car, the marked police car which had followed Hall to the Chevron station pulled into the parking lot next to Hall's car. The uniformed officer exited his vehicle and stood beside the passenger-side door of Hall's car.
Hall and the defendant got out of Hall's car and, with the uniformed officer, approached the car in which defendant had been sitting. Defendant assisted the officers in locating the tin box, which contained some rolling papers, razor blades, pipe cleaners, psychedelic mushrooms and other drug paraphernalia.
After the tin box had been located, a pat-down search was conducted while defendant leaned up against the fender of Hall's car. Defendant voluntarily emptied his pockets. After defendant had been searched, Hall drove him to the Brewer Police Station.
At the police station, defendant was brought to Hall's office. Hall explained that he was going to tape their conversation. Hall then turned on a tape recorder and interviewed defendant.5 After obtaining some identifying information, the following colloquy occurred:
Government's Exhibit 1, at 1 hereinafter referred to as Police Station Transcript, or PST.
Hall then asked about the phone call to "Butch" and the transaction which the defendant was trying to arrange. Defendant admitted that he had been trying to purchase an "eight ball" of coke,6 that he was trying to purchase cocaine for a friend so that he could make $30, and that he had made five or six other purchases from "Butch" in the past. See PST, at 2-5. Approximately the first quarter of the interview focused on events surrounding the telephone call to "Butch" and the aborted cocaine transaction. Hall then began a wider-ranging inquiry, about drug dealing at defendant's former place of employment, other sources of drugs and other dealings with "Butch." Approximately one-third of the way through the interview, Hall began pressing defendant for the identification of other persons who had supplied him with drugs. See PST, at 8-10. In questioning defendant about the mushrooms found in the tin box, Hall made the following statement:
PST, at 13 (emphasis added).
Hall asked about defendant's wife and children and defendant's living arrangements. After defendant said that neither he nor his wife was working, Hall remarked "Come up against some hard times, haven't you?" PST, at 15; see generally PST, at 14-16.
Later in the interview Hall focused on defendant's past dealings with "Butch," the amount of money involved, where transactions had taken place, and what the defendant had done with the drugs he had purchased. See PST, at 17-22. At the close of the interview, Hall pressed defendant for the names of other drug dealers:
PST, at 25-26 (emphasis added).
After the tape was turned off, defendant was allowed to leave the station. Defendant was not formally arrested. Defendant did not ask if he was free to leave during the encounter, nor did Hall advise defendant, at any time prior to the end of the interview, that he could leave. Although it is not precisely clear at what time the foregoing events occurred, Hall met defendant some time after dark on the evening of October 11. The encounter at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rezk
...defendant; (4) whether the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights; and (5) whether counsel was present. See United States v. Pinto, 671 F.Supp. 41, 57 (D.Me.1987). "Under the ‘totality of the circumstances' test, the existence of a promise made to the defendant is not dispositive. Rat......
-
US v. Conley
...168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897); United States v. Fraction, 795 F.2d 12, 14-15 (3d Cir.1986); United States v. Pinto, 671 F.Supp. 41, 59-60 (D.Maine 1987). In particular, where an express or implied promise not to use statements against, or not to prosecute, a declarant is m......
-
U.S. v. Kruger, No. CR. 00-88-P-C.
...Government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a confession was voluntarily made. See United States v. Pinto, 671 F.Supp. 41, 57 (D.Me.1987). Kruger's main contention regarding the alleged involuntary nature of the statements at issue is that he shared with the......
-
U.S. v. Kruger, Criminal No. 00-88-P-C (D. Me. 6/26/2001), Criminal No. 00-88-P-C.
...has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a confession was voluntarily made. See United States v. Pinto, 671 F. Supp. 41, 57 (D.Me. 1987). Kruger's main contention regarding the alleged involuntary nature of the statements at issue is that he shared with the officers......