Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03591/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03591-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Jerome Bailey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3591

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Timothy Jerome Bailey,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: May 20, 2016

 Filed: August 5, 2016 

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Timothy Bailey appeals from his conviction for possession of a firearm as a

previously convicted felon. Bailey contends that the district court erred in denying

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377 
a motion to suppress his recorded post-arrest statements, and that the government

produced insufficient evidence to support a judgment of conviction. We affirm.

I.

On March 25, 2014, Officer Daniel Irish of the Champlin Police Department

stopped a vehicle because Bailey, who wasriding in the front passenger seat, was not

wearing a seatbelt. After the vehicle stopped, Bailey got out and ran through a nearby

residential neighborhood, with Irish giving chase. Bailey jumped over a fence into

a yard owned by the Xiong family, stumbling and falling to the ground as he landed.

Irish testified that before jumping the Xiongs’ fence, Bailey was running with

his left hand holding up the waistband of his pants. Shortly after Bailey fell, Irish

noticed that Bailey was no longer holding onto his waistband. Bailey jumped over

another fence out of the Xiongs’ yard and crossed the street, where he was able to

evade Irish’s pursuit.

Irish called for back up, and a police canine unit eventually found Bailey hiding

behind a garage. Police arrested Bailey and placed him in the back of Irish’s squad

car. The car was equipped with an internal video-recording device that recorded

Bailey’s actions and words.

Because Bailey was not carrying identification, Irish parked in front of the

Xiongs’ house and asked for headquartersto send a mobile fingerprinting unit. While

he waited for the fingerprinting unit to arrive, Irish asked Bailey his name, why he ran

away, whether he had a criminal history, and whether there were any warrants for his

arrest. Irish also asked Bailey whether he knew about other crimes in the

neighborhood, suggesting that he might be able to “stay out of jail” by cooperating.

Irish did not read Bailey his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444

(1966).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377 
While Bailey and Irish sat in the squad car, Chia Koua Xiong ran up to the

vehicle and told Irish that his grandchildren had found a gun in his yard. Irish

followed Xiong into his home, where Xiong showed him the gun. Irish asked Xiong

to show him where the gun was recovered, and Xiong took Irish into the backyard

and pointed toward the fence on the west side of the yard. Irish recognized it as the

fence that Bailey had stumbled over earlier. Irish walked over to the fence and

discovered a cellular telephone near where the gun was discovered. Irish collected

the gun and the phone as evidence and returned to his squad car.

While Irish wasinvestigating the Xiongs’ discovery of a gun, Bailey remained

in Irish’s squad car with the internal video-recording device activated. Immediately

after Irish exited the squad car and followed Xiong to his home, the camera captured

Bailey saying, “Damn, they found that gun. F***. Damn. F***. Oh, man. Damn.”

The recording also showsthatBaileywas exasperated and upset when Xiong reported

finding the gun. Bailey talked to himself in the back of the squad car for

approximately two minutes, repeatedly swearing and complaining that Xiong was a

“bitch” and “nosy.”

After Irish returned to his squad car, the mobile fingerprinting unit arrived, and

Irish identified Bailey. Irish then transported Bailey to the local detention center. As

Irish was turning Bailey over to detention staff, Bailey asked about the cell phone in

a manner that, according to Irish, indicated that the phone was Bailey’s.

A grand jury charged Bailey with possession of a firearm as a previously

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Bailey

stipulated that he was a convicted felon and that the firearm had traveled in interstate

commerce, so the only disputed issue for trial was whether Bailey knowingly

possessed the firearm. Bailey moved to suppress the statements he made while in the

squad car after Irish left the vehicle, contending the statements were made in response

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377 
to custodial interrogation. The district court found that Bailey’s statements were not

in response to interrogation and denied the motion to suppress.

At trial, Irish testified consistent with the facts described above, and the

government presented the recorded statements that Bailey made while he sat alone

in Irish’s squad car. Chia Xiong and his wife, Kia Xiong, testified about how their

grandchildren discovered the firearm in their yard. The jury convicted Bailey, and

the court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment.

II.

Bailey argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the

statements he made while sitting alone in Irish’s squad car. Because Bailey

challenges only the district court’s legal conclusion that the statements were

admissible, we review de novo. United States v. Ochoa-Gonzalez, 598 F.3d 1033,

1038 (8th Cir. 2010).

Bailey contends that the court should have suppressed his statements because

Irish did not administer a Miranda warning before Bailey made the statements. 

Miranda warnings are required, however, only when police interrogate a defendant

in custody. Voluntary statements unprompted by interrogation are admissible with

or without Miranda warnings. United States v. McGlothen, 556 F.3d 698, 701 (8th

Cir. 2009).

Interrogation occurs only when there is express police questioning or its

“functional equivalent,” which means “words or actions on the part of the

police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating

response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980)

(emphasis added; footnote omitted). The actions that prompted Bailey’s

incriminating statements were taken by Xiong, a private citizen, and there is no

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377 
evidence that Xiong was acting in concert with the police. See Arizona v. Mauro, 481

U.S. 520, 528 (1987). Xiong’s report to Irish was not an interrogation of Bailey, so

Bailey was not entitled to a Miranda warning.

Bailey argues the statements were the result of interrogation because Irish did

question him before Xiong approached the vehicle. Even assuming that Irish’s

questions—most of which were in the nature of permissible “routine booking

question[s],” see Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601-02 (1990)—rose to the

level of interrogation, the government did not introduce any statement that Bailey

made in response to those questions. Irish’s conversation with Bailey ended before

Xiong approached the vehicle. An unwarned statement is admissible if it is made

voluntarily after police questioning has ended. See, e.g., United States v. Briones,

390 F.3d 610, 612-13 (8th Cir. 2004).

Bailey also arguesthat Irish sought to elicit incriminating statements by leaving

him alone in the squad car near the alleged crime scene with the video-recording

device turned on. Irish’s act of leaving Bailey in that situation did not constitute

interrogation. United States v. Hernandez-Mendoza, 600 F.3d 971, 976-77 (8thCir.),

as amended 611 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2010). Irish might have hoped or even expected

that Bailey would say something if left alone, “but an expectation of voluntary

statements does not amount to deliberate elicitation of an incriminating response.” 

Id. at 977. “Officers do not interrogate a suspect simply by hoping that he will

incriminate himself.” Mauro, 481 U.S. at 529. The district court properly denied

Bailey’s motion to suppress.

Bailey argues alternatively that the government did not present sufficient

evidence to prove that he possessed the firearm. We must view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict, accepting all reasonable inferences in favor of the

verdict. United States v. Gutierrez, 757 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2014). We will

reverse only if no reasonable juror could have convicted Bailey. Id.

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377 
The evidence supporting the conviction was substantial. When Irish stopped

the vehicle in which Bailey was a passenger, Bailey immediately fled through a

residential neighborhood. The Xiongs’ grandchildren located the firearm in a fenced

yard along the route of Bailey’s flight, and the discovery was reported to police

within forty-five minutes of Bailey’s apprehension. Irish testified that he saw Bailey

fall down near where the firearm was discovered, and thatshortly after his fall, Bailey

was no longer holding his waistband as he ran. When Xiong led Irish to the area

where his grandchildren discovered the gun, Irish also found a cell phone that Bailey

later indicated was his. Bailey’s recorded reaction to Xiong’s discovery of the

firearm demonstrated consciousness of guilt. From this evidence, a jury reasonably

could have inferred that Bailey, a convicted felon, fled to avoid detection of the

handgun, that he was holding the firearm in his waistband as he ran initially, and that

he dropped the firearm and the cell phone when he fell. 

* * *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3591 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/05/2016 Entry ID: 4434377