for this court and so this court will be conducting a denotable review of the underlying issue of custody of course the facts remain under the clearly erroneous standard the bulk of my time i would like to focus on relates to the court's application of factors two and factors five of griffin in particular as the court has read in the underlying factual description here is that when the officers in this case interviewed the defendant in the conference room the door was closed below the court and the government place substantial weight on united states versus black bear as well as united states versus lebron indicating that while most cases the door was close to and therefore if a door is closed that's not an adverse factor but one of the things if you look at those particular cases the underlying facts they were nearer models in terms of what an officer is supposed to do and black  officer informed of believers at the hospital in an injury case he expressly informed the suspect that he was not under arrest that he did not have to speak with them that he could end the interview at any time and i think as a factual matter in that case there was no there was no arrest at the conclusion of that what were the two incriminating questions the incriminating questions was whether it was significant at least for us in terms of whether he was in the country illegally or not are the but there's a very different standard for what what can be questioned if if that's what the actual intent to what they're doing but i don't think that's the record in this case your honor i mean on that well in terms of the beginning of the case we we know that the that the questioning at the at the ice offices had had nothing to do with the reason he was arrest well he was you know the inference is that you're challenging our if this wasn't questioning based for for the offense charge this was immigration if alien removal question under the criminal ilian program and i believe it was nussbaum that said that that was one of his primary jobs as well as mr walker if you look at the record your honor miss love had when she realized there was not a match between mr sanchez on the social security number that he had on his application she immediately called agent nussbaum the state of iowa who investigates essentially transportation related issues related to social security they have an immediate we called the case only if that's the intent in the question but well i think that it was if you look about it well we i mean if there are if there is an administratively valid inner interrogation questioning whatever you want to call of an alien suspected of being removable and the alien discloses evaluation of eighteen us c somewhere that's usable that's not that's not suppress a bill just because if made the most to suppress and we wanted to get the information out that he had admitted that he was in the country illegally and also related to the a trauma case i believe that that case is very clear but if you have reason to know it as a black letter law offense charge of the questions not directly relevant to the offense charged and at the time the questions were the reason for the arrest of i mean there wasn't even an offense charge but the reason for custody was likely removal well i believe they were conducting a criminal investigation at that point i do believe that well wait a minute where where where is that in the impression findings well ultimately if you look at what they argue in the end if you know evitable discovery what they say was the officers continued on with the investigation and they were able to determine i believe with the officer not that the social korean number that he had presented that day did not match or was used in the context of the i but you had the burden at the suppression hearing to prove that the questioning was it was illegal because that he was legal there was probable cause to arrest because he admitted he was not in the country illegally now it was a it was it wasn't it wasn't a criminal issue there is always criminal now one when the basis for discovery of being here illegally is the use of the name of a social security suspicious social security number to gain employment or do other some of the other things that we see prosecuted or that's always in the background but you have to prove that that the questioner at the time of the questioning and that as the dominant purpose for the interrogation well and i don't see that that was done okra well in terms of what the court actually addressed i mean that really did not come up significantly it was mainly the question of whether they were in custody or not i mean i was i i thought it was  nothing in the briefs or not much in the district court to the magistrate judge opinion about this aspect well yeah and there was no issue and it was certainly not raised by the government in its brief either so in terms of the other  factor that was that was utilized one was the the th factor related to police domination and that related to the axum case in the acts and case was a case where there were nine officers and two of them and spoke to him in close quarters and the court cited that favorably to make an adverse finding indicating that that revealed that there was not police domination but a maxim case it was a child pornography case and in that particular case he was at home he was able to move around yes there were more numerical officers but i think in terms of the context of the relevance of this particular case it was please not police dominated this case in this particular case you had two officers in a conference room in close quarters with no one else present now the court i know we have these factors but if we just look at it from a from a question of common sense i mean basically these ice officers they were playing closed right and they didn't have their guns or badges shelling and they say hey would you like to you know we have and they talked about it would you like to join us in this conference room and yes they close the door but for privacy and they have a cordial conversation seems to me that i'm hard pressed to say that somebody under those circumstances had custody or everybody's in custody well no i mean that's not true because i mean if you look at blackburn those sorts of cases one of the factors a griffon play significant way does is that you are not under arrest you are free to terminate this question and you don't have to talk to us why did they do that well they didn't tell him that they didn't do the opposite though they didn't say you had to talk to us and you are under arrest crack that is correct that's a factor for is probably are we just factor in terms of the all the other ones there was a right there was a rest at the end of the question in all the other factors or in favor of his position especially when you look at factors two and five properly understood with permission i'd like to ask another question  with regard to the miranda issue and the interrogation or biographical information obtained at the ice silty what information obtained during that questioning directly related to the offense charge because i think it's a close question here well i mean i think he was ultimately charge was with use of a social security number and i nine and as well and a w for misuse and possession of a forged document if you're talking about by graphical information and date of birth where you're from a country of origin i think the government's going to use that information at that prosecution for misuse i mean it's certainly relevant for purpose of the jury to make that consideration irrelevant different information than they obtained at the treasurer's office the treasure is very limited it was just belated to the consular id and the fact that he was in the country illegally so we wanted to clean up that record based upon the lawfully obtained information thank you your good morning my name is emily and i don't know i'm mrs dean ited states attorney from the northern district of iowa i'm here representing the united states of america i would like to start by making a correction to the government's brief i noticed last night while preparing for today's argument that pages eighteen and nineteen in the discussion of the gryphon factors are brief states that factors two through five were found to favor and finding the defined it was not in custody my review of the district court order denying the motion to suppress reflects the rd factor backed whether or not the suspect initiated contact the district court actually found that factor slightly favored the defendant and that can be found at docket thirty two at page gryphon factors even matter if this was valid immigration investigation and ultimately detention you want to believe in our original response we argued the issue with regard to at least interrogation the district court to st a magistrate court but then so it was contained within that briefing then the magistrate made the recommendation and then ultimately the district court affirmed it didn't address the issues it extent to which immigration investigators are not have by by a c f r regulations work or agency practice are not limited to the confines of miranda griffin and so forth certainly all they're doing is pursuing removal certainly or your honour's could find based on that factor and based on argument any argument that's been previously argued could be a basis but ultimately  district court found in this case was that regardless of whether or not there was an interrogation brand it wasn't necessary regardless if there was an exception i think in effect the about the book in question issue and then the special immigration type questions and inquiries are in essence exceptions if you well let's talk about that a little more given callus and testimony why was a miranda warning not necessary before the in relevant to an investigation into the social security number church here i believe specifically with regard to this that page thirteen and fourteen of the district court's order judge reed noted that ice office her findings were that this was a routine booking procedure from asking about callouses testimony i think it was opposite of that believe his testimony indicated that he did not seek information with regard to specific the social security card or issues relating to work but he knew it would be relevant well you know i think at all times when you take biographical information you know that that's relevant to any case and that's not unique to immigration cases i mean to some degree we focus more maybe on identity with regard to immigration cases but in all cases all of the biographical information could be useful to the prosecution of the case but i don't disagree is just that the the criteria for the exception to the booking information rule requires that it seems to fall fall into that exception if you know that it's relevant but it's relevant to the charge offense right and the charge but it's got to be relevant at the time i believe so you know and i think because it turns out to be relevant to it to a with criminal offense that had nothing to do with the question at the time it was asked is that is that enough for the suppression i don't believe it is your honor or there would be several biographical type questions says that i don't i believe that both the cho and then looking at garcia's of allah i mean both of those circumstances we had situations where defendants were in similar type circumstances and the types of questions that were asked by mr o administrative processing procedure well let me ask you this though i heard judge grass say something slightly different which is that he knew it would be relevant so if the time he knew was relevant to a potential charge that would be different right maybe maybe i missed cousens testimony i can attempt to find it but ultimately his testimony is what it is but the district court in reviewing that testimony found that these questions were specifically not intended to get at the issues that were ultimately the issues that the defendant was charged with in this well and that brings up an interesting point even if that testimony says would be relevant it's also it gets a little bit to judge locums point which is it's also relevant to what they had him in the ice facility for which is whether he's here illegally because if he has a valid social security number is not here legally most likely and it's not about social security number and he's probably here you know illegally or at least there's a so what we do when we have there's two potential purposes one is what he's there for which has nothing to do with the criminal charge and one just happens to affect the criminal charge and i think the question comes down to some degree what's the goal and for officer callison it was not to build a criminal prosecution that may have occurred information could have been gained but ultimately what he was trying to do here was process this defendant he needed to know information about his biographical information he'd know where he came from he need to know if he had children he needed to know did he have a spouse or not he needed to know why did he come to this country he needed to know why you are you're not returning is it because you're afraid all of these had to do with what officer callous and was trying to process through it's a little bit similar to what occurred when  the deputy at the treasurer's office was trying to process the defendant's information and she is not in the vein of thinking hey i'm trying to get together mission a prosecutor she's literally thinking how do i get this guy's tag so i can get to the next person so i can federal fans had been discovered at the treasurer's office based on the social security number being correct and that the questions he asked could be used in connection with the possible criminal investigation it's very different when i think it  asked at line fifteen and didn't there wasn't an indication at that point you know federal charges were had occurred and then they go on and he says to be honest it wasn't in my mind he was thinking more about the process and he goes on to explain he's talking about processing and that's his goal at that moment so yes there could be criminal charges but ultimately that's not his goal and he need to get the biographical information for other purposes and it didn't it wasn't questioning relating to the work situation whether or not he'd use documents in that capacity would know that when considering the griffin factors the again of the totality of the circumstance when looking at these ultimately the defendant was not in custody at the time at the treasurer's office defense doesn't have doesn't have a freedom of movement wouldn't in this case that this was a circumstance where he was in a crowded noisy room when approached by the officers a room was obtained for the purposes of giving the defendant privacy this was not a situation as described and many other cases where this was a room within the police department where was a small cramped room with no windows it's not how it was described so i would argue that this wasn't a factor that weighed kind of within each factor i would say that are as you weigh factors within factors to decide which way the factor goes would argue that that in itself is does not is not sufficient to make the other factors and considerations with regard to freedom of movement doesn't make any difference to what a reasonable to have to start all this over it's a why not let's let's wait and see if we can get the document cleared up that's not telling him he can't go she didn't order this day she didn't say you need to stay here what she said was essentially you can go but that will  take more time you're wasting my time by doing that which is different than being ordered or directed or i'm in some form a strong arm tactic the difference between a helpful clerk and a commander  still i'm not what with that clarification i'd i'm not sure what the question is i guess well the question is is does that affect what a reasonable person would think of the prior conversation with the treasurer office i think a reasonable person in that situation is under this aware that maybe a social norm would say in order not to waste everyone's time i would say but i don't think that's different than not believing that you can go and so in th case then occasion was he was told that you can leave and he there's no indication that he thought he couldn't leave because of her statements so i think a reasonable person would still be under the understanding that they had the ability to leave whether or not they chose to leave is a different question so the fact the acquiesce to her request to stay so they could finish the process and again her testimony is clear her comments were made with the goal of let's get these tags let's get this thing processed not at that point though i think the testimony is clear that in her mind she's still in attempt to process the situation the reason for her reaching out to the investigator wasn't for the purpose of having him convicted or charged with any crime so just to address your issue about what she actually told him that is found at transcript page twenty four lines eighteen through twenty five she acknowledged in her report did not even address whether she was afr leave or not and she also admitted that she told them it was not ok to leave until the officer got there and that's in line twenty four the only other portion of the transcript that i would direct the chords on that i think she originally told him he couldn't leave and then she told  and so yes and yes and no i mean that that's the way the age way the way particular agency people may view it it's not clear that it's very ambiguous