Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01380/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Taft Burtton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1380

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Taft Burtton, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2009

Filed: April 2, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Taft Burtton was charged in a two-count indictment with possession with intent

to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), and criminal forfeiture of $4886 seized

from his person and $111 seized from his vehicle. Burtton sought suppression of

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop of his vehicle, including the search of his

person. The district court1

 denied Burtton's motion to suppress.2 We affirm. 

I. Background3

At approximately 5:30 p.m. on the evening of December 2, 2007, Omaha Police

Department Officers James Maloney and Taylon Fancher were in uniform, in a

marked police car, on routine patrol in Omaha. After observing a Lincoln Navigator

run a stop sign and fail to signal its intent to turn westbound, they stopped the vehicle. 

Officer Maloney approached the driver side of the vehicle, while Officer

Fancher approached the passenger side. The Lincoln Navigator contained three

occupants: a driver and two backseat passengers. The occupants had removed the

middle seat, and the rear passengers were in the far backseat, creating a "kind of

limousine setup." Burtton sat in the rear seat of the car behind the driver, Terrence

Partee. Ralph Cotton also sat in the rear seat with Burtton. Cotton initially provided

the officers with a false name and date of birth.

When Officer Maloney approached the vehicle, he observed the two backseat

passengers holding 12-ounce plastic cups and saw a liquor bottle on the floor.

Additionally, he noticed a very strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle.

Officer Maloney spoke to Partee, the driver, who admitted that he had a suspended

driver's license. 

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

2

Burtton entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the

district court's denial of his motion to suppress. 

3

These facts are taken from the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,

which the district court adopted. Burtton did not object to these factual findings. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
For safety reasons, the officers directed the occupants to exit the vehicle

because of difficulty observing the occupants due to the number of people in the

vehicle, window tints, and darkness approaching. The officers secured them with

handcuffs. Officer Maloney asked Burtton and Cotton what they were drinking, and

they pointed to the liquor bottle on the floor in the backseat. Officer Maloney smelled

the cups and concluded that they contained alcohol. After also discovering that Partee

and Cotton had outstanding misdemeanor warrants for their arrest, the officers

arrested all of the occupants of the Lincoln Navigator. 

Officer Maloney then searched Burtton's person before searching the vehicle.

Officer Maloney found a baggie containing about 15 grams of marijuana tucked in

Burtton's sock and approximately $4500 in cash. Based on his experience, Officer

Maloney considered $4500 to be an usually large amount of cash to be carrying.

After Officer Maloney searched Burtton, the officers placed Burtton in Officer

Maloney's police cruiser and searched the Lincoln Navigator. There, the officers

discovered less than an ounce of marijuana or marijuana residue. The officers also

found a recently smoked marijuana blunt in the ash tray of the Lincoln Navigator.

During the search, Burtton, sitting in the police cruiser, called to Officer Maloney and

stated that the $4500 was for a real estate deal in south Omaha. Burtton said, "I know

what you're thinking. You think because I got a lot of money, there's marijuana in the

car, that I might be a drug dealer or something." When Officer Maloney asked Burtton

why he did not use a bank or a cashier's check—something with a receipt—for the real

estate deal, Burtton replied that using cash was "easier." Officer Maloney found this

explanation suspicious, but he did not ask additional questions. Officer Maloney had

no evidence to support or contradict Burtton's explanation for carrying the cash. 

During the traffic stop, Officer Maloney called Officer Joseph Baudler of the

Omaha Police Department. Officer Maloney summarized the traffic stop and asked

Officer Baudler to speak to the occupants of the house at 3050 Newport Avenue.

-3-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
Baudler was to visit the house to determine who the occupants were and seek consent

to search the house. Officer Maloney told Officer Baudler that he had venue items of

Terri Burtton or Taft Burtton that linked them to 3050 Newport Avenue, although Taft

Burtton had given Officer Maloney a different address—304 North 38th Street.

Officer Baudler agreed to contact the occupants. 

Officer Maloney discovered that the Lincoln Navigator was registered to

Burtton but that no address was associated with the license plates. At the scene,

Burtton told Officer Maloney that he lived at 304 North 38th Street but sometimes

stayed with his estranged wife, Terri Burtton.4

 Officer Maloney learned from the

police dispatcher that 304 North 38th Street, Omaha, Nebraska, was not a valid

address. Officer Maloney drafted his affidavit in support of a search warrant of 3050

Newport Avenue based upon his belief that the address was invalid. But Officer

Maloney later learned that the address was valid. Officer Maloney learned from

Burtton that Terri Burtton lived at 3050 Newport Avenue. 

Based on his experience and observations at the traffic stop, Officer Maloney

suspected that the marijuana found in the Lincoln Navigator came from the baggie

found on Burtton and that Burtton could have sold the marijuana to others. Based on

this belief, Officer Maloney arrested Burtton for possession with suspicion to deliver

marijuana. Officer Maloney transported Burtton to the police station at approximately

6:30 to 6:45 p.m. At 7:05 p.m., Officer Maloney advised Burtton of his Miranda

rights at the police department. Burtton responded "yes sir" to each question, and

4

In contrast, Burtton recalls stating, "Prior to me moving to 3050 Newport, I

lived at 304 North 38th Street." Burtton testified that he did not tell Officer Maloney

that he was currently living at 304 North 38th Street and that Officer Maloney got that

address from the license plate. Additionally, Burtton stated that he and his wife do not

fight. The magistrate judge concluded that this discrepancy between Officer Maloney's

testimony and Burtton's testimony "does not create a material difference." But the

magistrate judge credited Officer Maloney's testimony after observing the witnesses'

demeanor and considering their testimony in light of all of the other credible evidence. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
Officer Maloney recorded Burtton's answers via a rights-advisory form. After Officer

Maloney advised Burtton of his rights, Burtton told Officer Maloney that "the only

thing you're going to find at [3050 Newport Avenue] is marijuana residue" and then

invoked his right to silence.5

 Partee and Cotton, in separate interviews, mentioned to

the officers that they had been at 3050 Newport Avenue earlier that day smoking

marijuana and playing video games with Burtton. 

Meanwhile, at 6:15 p.m., Officer Baudler and another officer arrived at 3050

Newport Avenue. They knocked on the door and met a woman who identified herself

as Terri Burtton. The officers asked her if they could speak to her, and she allowed the

officers to enter the home and proceed to the kitchen area. Officer Baudler told Terri

Burtton that her husband had been arrested for possession of narcotics. He then asked

her to consent to a search of the home for narcotics. She wanted to talk to her husband

before she consented to a search of the residence. 

On two separate occasions, Terri Burtton contacted her husband at the police

station where they discussed the consent to search. Both Taft Burtton and Terri

Burtton signed a permission-to-search form. But almost immediately after signing the

form, Taft Burtton revoked his consent. Officer Maloney contacted Officer Baudler

and told him that Taft Burtton had revoked his consent. After learning that her

husband had revoked his consent, Terri Burtton revoked her consent. She testified that

she asked the officers to leave the residence but that they refused.

At 7:30 p.m., Officer Maloney drafted an affidavit and application seeking a

search warrant for the residence. Officer Maloney asked Officer Baudler to secure the

house while waiting for the issuance of the warrant. Based on his experience, Officer

Baudler was concerned that evidence of narcotics, if in the residence, could easily be

5

Burtton denied making any statements about marijuana residue to Officer

Maloney or that any residue would be found at 3050 Newport Avenue. The magistrate

judge credited Officer Maloney's testimony. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
destroyed absent a police presence. Officer Baudler went through the house to make

sure that no adults were present and that no one was hiding, then he continued to wait

for the search warrant in the kitchen area with Terri Burtton. Officer Baudler informed

Terri Burtton that the officers would be waiting at her house until the warrant arrived.

Later, Terri Burtton received a telephone call and, during the call, asked Officer

Baudler if she was under arrest. Officer Baudler replied "no." She then stated that she

wanted to leave the residence, and the officers did not object. She left the residence

for approximately 20 minutes. When Officer Baudler informed Officer Maloney that

Terri Burtton had left, Officer Maloney stated that he was on his way to get the

warrant signed. 

Officer Maloney's search warrant affidavit stated his belief that the officers

would discover 

[m]arijuana and it's [sic] derivatives, whether homemade or

manufactured; scales and packaging materials commonly used in the

distribution of illicit drugs; Monies and proceeds associated with the

sales of illicit drugs; Records used to conduct illegal narcotics operation

and venue items identifying the occupants of 3050 Newport Avenue,

Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska.

In support of the search, the affidavit states, in relevant part:

On SUN 02DEC07 1733 hours Affiant Officers MALONEY #1701 and

Officer FANCHER #1839 conducted a traffic stop near 41st and Lake

Street for stop sign violation on a silver 1999 Lincoln Navigator

(PVC359/NE). Upon approach Affiant Officers MALONEY and Officer

FANCHER detected the strong odor of marijuana coming from the

vehicle, observed an open container of alcoholic beverage in plain view

and the driver, Terrence PARTEE (6-30-73), had a suspended license

and outstanding misdemeanor warrant. Passenger, Ralph COTTON, had

an outstanding misdemeanor warrant. A search of the vehicle incident to

-6-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
the arrest resulted in four different bags of marijuana less than 1 ounce

and one marijuana "blunt" being recovered in addition to the open

container of alcoholic beverage.

The owner and additional passenger of the vehicle, Taft BURTTON, was

in possession of marijuana less than an 1oz [sic] (estimated at 1⁄2 ounce

by BURTTON) as well as over $4500 in US currency. BURTTON

claimed he was going to use the cash to buy a building in south Omaha

for his business. Affiant Officer MALONEY considered this a suspicious

reason for having over $4500 in cash in the pocket of BURTTON. When

Affiant Officer MALONEY asked BURTTON why he wouldn't use a

check or credit on order to prove and record the transaction, BURTTON

would only reply that it was "easier[."] BURTTON made a post Miranda

statement that Affiant Officers would find marijuana residue if they

searched the residence at 3050 Newport Avenue. Both passengers

Terrance PARTEE (DOB: 6-30-73) and Ralph COTTON (5-28-76)

stated they were at 3050 Newport Avenue earlier today smoking

marijuana and playing video games.

BURTTON told Affiant Officer MALONEY and Officer FANCHER

that he lived at an apartment at 304 North 38th Street in Omaha, NE in

addition to staying sometime[s] with his wife at 3050 Newport Avenue,

because they were currently estranged. Affiant Officer MALONEY

checked with Northeast dispatcher and learned that 304 North 38th Street

in Omaha, NE was not a valid address.

Officer BAUDLER #1203 went to 3050 Newport Avenue in an attempt

to gain consent to search. Consent was refused and the residence was

secured pending the outcome of this application for search warrant.

Officer Maloney arrived at the residence with the signed search warrant at 9:00

p.m. shortly after it was signed. Aware of the warrant's issuance, Officer Baudler and

other officers immediately began searching the residence. Terri Burtton returned,

entered the house, questioned Officer Baudler's search, and said "you guys are

searching my house without a warrant." Officer Baudler informed her that the warrant

was outside with Officer Maloney. Terri Burtton left the residence, stating, "No, I'm

-7-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
telling my lawyer you're searching my house without a warrant." When Terri Burtton

went back outside, Officer Maloney had arrived and gave her the search warrant; she

then left.6

 At the time Terri Burtton received a copy of the warrant, the officers had

not yet discovered any evidence. No officer searched the house for contraband prior

to Officer Maloney telling Officer Baudler that the judge signed the search warrant.

Officers Maloney and Baudler then searched the residence and found contraband,

including narcotics.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Burtton asserts that (1) the officers had neither probable cause nor

reasonable suspicion to justify searching him following the traffic stop; (2) because

his personal search was illegal, the home search pursuant to a warrant based on

evidence acquired in the personal search was also illegal and unjustified; and (3) even

if the initial search of Burtton's person was lawful, probable cause did not exist to

justify his warrantless arrest for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 

Burtton does not dispute (1) the legality of the traffic stop; (2) Officer Maloney

observing Burtton and Cotton sitting in the back of the vehicle holding plastic cups

suspected of containing alcohol; or (3) Officer Maloney detecting the odor of

marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Additionally, he does not challenge as

unlawful the officer's removal of Burtton from the vehicle at the outset of the stop.

Instead, Burtton argues that the immediate search of his person following his removal

from the vehicle by law enforcement was patently unlawful. According to Burtton, his

possession of an open container of alcohol did not provide the officers with probable

cause to arrest him because, under Nebraska law, an open container violation is not

6

Terri Burtton testified that the officers had begun searching five to ten minutes

prior to the arrival of Officer Maloney based on her observation that items in the

kitchen had been moved. The magistrate judge credited Officer Baudler's testimony

that the only search of the residence prior to the arrival of the search warrant was a

protective sweep of the house to determine if other parties were present. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
a misdemeanor crime but simply an infraction punishable by a maximum $100 fine;

under Nebraska law, a person who commits an infraction must be issued a citation in

lieu of arrest. Therefore, Burtton asserts that his open container, without more, did not

provide probable cause to arrest him. Also, Burtton maintains that marijuana odor

emanating from the vehicle did not provide sufficient evidence to justify a warrantless

automobile search. 

In response, the government contends that Burtton's argument that Nebraska

law does not permit officers to arrest an individual for violation of the open container

law is irrelevant for purposes of federal review of a search incident to arrest.

According to the government, federal courts apply federal constitutional

jurisprudence, not state or local law that may more narrowly constrain police conduct.

Furthermore, the government argues that the scent of marijuana alone provided the

officers with probable cause to search both the vehicle and its occupants. 

 Nebraska law provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person in the passenger

area of a motor vehicle to possess an open alcoholic beverage container while the

motor vehicle is located in a public parking area or on any highway in this state." Neb.

Rev. Stat. § 60-6, 211.08(2). A violation of the open container law "constitutes a

traffic infraction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-682 (Reissue 1998)." State v. Low, No.

A-02-949, 2003 WL 22076360, at *3 (Neb. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2003) (unpublished). In

turn, § 29-435 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes provides that "'[e]xcept as provided

in [Neb. Rev. Stat. §] 29-427 [(Reissue 1995)], for any offense classified as an

infraction, a citation shall be issued in lieu of arrest or continued custody pursuant to

[Neb. Rev. Stat. §§] 29-422 to 29-429 [(Reissue 1995 & Cum. Supp.2002)].'" Id.

7

Section 29-427 provides for certain exceptions in which a police officer may

effectuate an arrest. Id. (quoting Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-427). If "none of the exceptions

7

In contrast to Nebraska state law, an Omaha City Ordinance describes a

potential six-month jail sentence for an open container offense. Omaha Municipal

Code §§ 15-14, 20-1, 1-10.

-9-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
set out in § 29-427 apply," officers may only issue the individual a citation; they lack

the authority to arrest the individual for the infraction. Id. 

Although Nebraska law prohibits officers from arresting an individual for

violating the open container law, "state law violations do not necessarily offend the

Federal Constitution." United States v. Bell, 54 F.3d 502, 504 (8th Cir. 1995). "Thus,

when a federal court must decide whether to exclude evidence obtained through an

arrest, search, or seizure by state officers, the appropriate inquiry is whether the arrest,

search, or seizure violated the Federal Constitution, not whether the arrest, search, or

seizure violated state law." Id. As a general rule, we "d[o] not look to state statutes to

assess the validity of an arrest, search, or seizure under the Fourth Amendment." Id.

"Fourth Amendment analysis requires reference to state law in only a few situations.

For example, to show the reasonableness of an inventory search, the Government must

show officers complied with state standardized procedures." Id. (internal citation

omitted). But Fourth Amendment analysis does not require "reference to an arrest's

legality under state law." Id. "An arrest by state officers is reasonable in the Fourth

Amendment sense if it is based on probable cause." Id. (holding that district court

erroneously concluded that because state law did not authorize the defendant's arrest

for operating a bicycle without a headlight, "cocaine could not be validly seized

incident to [the defendant's] arrest").

We have previously held that officers were permitted to arrest a defendant

without a warrant for violating a city's public drinking ordinance where the defendant

committed the misdemeanor offense in the officers' presence. United States v. Lewis,

183 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 1999). We acknowledged the "well-established principle

of the common law that a police officer is permitted to arrest without a warrant if a

misdemeanor is committed in the officer's presence." Id. 

Here, Burtton's violation of the open container law constituted an "infraction,"

not a misdemeanor. Therefore, the question is whether the commission of an

-10-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
"infraction" in the presence of officers supplied the officers with probable cause to

arrest Burtton under the Fourth Amendment. "In a long line of cases, [the Supreme

Court has] said that when an officer has probable cause to believe a person committed

even a minor crime in his presence, the balancing of private and public interests is not

in doubt. The arrest is constitutionally reasonable." Virginia v. Moore, 128 S. Ct.

1598, 1604 (2008) (emphasis added) (citing Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S.

318, 354 (2001); Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004); Gerstein v. Pugh,

420 U.S. 103, 111 (1975); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 164 (1949)). 

In Moore, the defendant 

was arrested for the misdemeanor of driving with a suspended license

despite the fact that in the circumstances of his case Virginia law

authorized only the issuance of a summons. The Court held that although

a state may provide more protection from warrantless arrests than the

federal Constitution, that enhanced protection does not govern the scope

of the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1606–07. If

state laws could define the contours of the Fourth Amendment, its

protections would "vary from place to place and from time to time." Id.

at 1607 (quoting Whren [v. United States], 517 U.S. [806,] 815 [(1996)]).

The Court noted that this rule was implicit in its earlier decisions. Id. at

1604–05. In Whren, the warrantless arrest based on probable cause was

upheld even though plainclothes officers in unmarked cars were not

generally permitted by the District of Columbia's police regulations to

enforce traffic laws. 517 U.S. at 815, 116 S. Ct. 1769. "Just as a search

authorized by state law may be an unreasonable one under [the Fourth

Amendment], so may a search not expressly authorized by state law be

justified as a constitutionally reasonable one." Cooper v. California, 386

U.S. 58, 61, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed.2d 730 (1967). In Atwater, the Court

held that:

[T]he standard of probable cause "applie[s] to all arrests,

without the need to 'balance' the interests and circumstances

involved in particular situations." If an officer has probable

-11-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
cause to believe that an individual has committed even a

very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may,

without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the

offender.

532 U.S. at 354, 121 S. Ct. 1536 (citation omitted) (quoting Dunaway v.

New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed.2d 824 (1979)).

Concluding its discussion of the officers' authority to make the arrest, the

Court held that "warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence

of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that

while States are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state

restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment's protections." Moore,

128 S. Ct. at 1607.

Rose v. City of Mulberry, Ark., 533 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that police

officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for reckless driving, meaning that such

arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether the officer was

outside of his jurisdiction at the time of the arrest). 

In light of Moore, "if an arrest is otherwise reasonable, the fact that it is not for

an 'arrestable' offense does not make it unconstitutional." Thomas v. City of Peoria,

580 F.3d 633, 637 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Moore, 128 S. Ct. at 1606–07). "[T]he

Fourth Amendment does not forbid an arrest for a 'nonjailable' offense." Id. at 638

(rejecting argument of arrestee, who was stopped by a city police officer for a traffic

violation and arrested after the officer mistakenly identified him as an individual who

had nine unpaid parking tickets and a warrant for his arrest, that the city had an

unconstitutional policy of arresting people for not paying their parking tickets). 

Applying the rationale of Moore, Bell, and Rose, Burtton unquestionably

committed a "minor crime"—violation of an open container law—in the presence of

Officer Maloney when he was holding a 12-ounce plastic cup suspected of containing

an alcoholic beverage in close proximity to a liquor bottle on the floor near Burtton.

-12-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
As a result, Officer Maloney had probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to

arrest Burtton and conduct a search incident to arrest. See United States v. Pratt, 355

F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir. 2004) ("[I]f an officer has arrested the individual, the officer

may search the individual's person incident to that arrest and may reach into his

pockets."). Therefore, no redaction of evidence is required from the affidavit tendered

in support of the search warrant application, and Burtton's Mirandized statement at the

police station, admitting that there was marijuana residue at his home, is not the fruit

of an illegal search.8

8

Because we hold that violation of the open container law provided Officer

Maloney with probable cause to arrest Burtton, we need not consider whether the

smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle alone provided probable cause to

justify the search of Burtton, as opposed to merely the search of the vehicle. 

And, because probable cause existed to arrest Burtton and effectuate a search

incident to arrest, we need not address Burtton's argument that, assuming the search

was illegal, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), requires the redaction

of evidence obtained from the unlawful search from the affidavit tendered in support

of the search warrant application. 

Also, we need not address Burtton's argument that because the officers lacked

probable cause to arrest him for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, the

resulting discovery of the marijuana in his sock and the currency in his pocket, as well

as his subsequent statements concerning the source of the currency and his former

address, must be redacted from the search warrant affidavit. As explained supra,

Officer Maloney had probable cause to arrest, and did arrest, Burtton for violation of

the open container law. Thus, the record demonstrates that Burtton was lawfully under

arrest at the time that he was searched. 

Finally, we note that Burtton has not argued on appeal—as he did before the

district court—that his pre-Miranda statements were involuntarily made and followed

an involuntary waiver of his Miranda rights. Burtton has not challenged the district

court's conclusion that "[t]he evidence shows that Taft Burtton made voluntary

unsolicited statements regarding the large amount of cash found on his person.

Burtton called an officer over to make the statement." Likewise, Burtton has not

-13-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049
III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

challenged the district court's finding that, post-Miranda, "Burtton signed a waiver of

rights form that was read to him as he answered each question" and that "Burtton did

not testify that his waiver was involuntary." 

-14-

Appellate Case: 09-1380 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Entry ID: 3651049