Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cr-60001/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cr-60001-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virgil E. Butler
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF

v.

No.6:06CR60001-001

VIRGIL E. BUTLER DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The defendant, Virgil E. Butler (hereinafter “Defendant”), is charged in an indictment

filed herein on November 11, 2005, with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2), and possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26

U.S.C. § § 5841, 5861(d) & 5871. (Doc. #1) 

Pending before the Court is the defendant’s motion to suppress filed on April 14, 2006.

(Doc. #27) The United States filed a response to the motion on April 24, 2006. (Doc. #29)

Hearing on the motion was conducted on May 9, 2006. The United States appeared by Assistant

United States Attorney, Charles Smith. The Defendant appeared in person and by his attorney,

Assistant Federal Defender Lisa Peters. A supplemental hearing was conducted on June 13,

2006. The United States appeared by Assistant United States Attorney Matt Fleming and the

Defendant appeared in person and by his attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Lisa Peters.

Following the hearing, the undersigned took the motion under advisement.

In the pending motion the defendant seeks suppression of items found by law enforcement

officers, on April 29, 2005, in a rural Montgomery County, Arkansas residence which was

occupied by the defendant and his companion and suppression of statements made by the

defendant to law enforcement officers after he was taken into custody. 

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Evidence presented:

Stipulations: The parties stipulated that on December 3, 2001, in State of Arkansas v.

Laura Alexander, Polk County Circuit Court, Criminal Division, No. CR-2000-138, an order of

probation was entered, placing Laura Alexander on probation for the term of 48 months, after

pleading guilty to the offense of Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance in violation

of Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-64-401. Among the conditions of probation is condition

number nine, requiring the probationer to:

9. Submit your person, property, place of residence or vehicle to search and

seizure at any time of the day or night, with or without a search warrant,

whenever requested to do so by the probation officer. Government Ex. #1 

It was further stipulated that by order of the Circuit Court of Polk County, Arkansas,

Criminal Division, in State of Arkansas v. Laura Alexander, No. Cr-00-138, dated January 9,

2004, Alexander’s probation was changed to unsupervised status with the requirement that she

comply with all probation conditions in the original order but she would not be required to report

or pay a probation fee. Government Ex. #2

Finally, the parties stipulated, in open court, that on April 29, 2005, the defendant resided

in the subject residence along with Alexander.

Testimony:

Frank Gibson: Frank Gibson testified that he is a probation officer with the Arkansas

Department of Community Correction in Arkansas’ 18th West Judicial District which is

composed of Polk and Montgomery counties. He has been so employed for just over two and

one-half years. He works out of Mena, Arkansas. Gibson has a bachelor’s degree from Arkansas

Tech University and attended the six week probation officer’s academy. Gibson supervises

probationers in Polk, Montgomery and Scott Counties.

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

Among the basic conditions of probation is the requirement that the probationer refrain

from using or possessing controlled substances. Each probationer is apprised of the conditions

of probation at the time that supervision begins. 

Gibson stated that Vickie Fenwick is a fellow probation officer in his office and that they

are of equal rank. Officer Fenwick supervised a probationer by the name of Laura Alexander.

Gibson was not monitoring her directly. Alexander’s underlying charge was possession of

controlled substance, methamphetamine, in Polk County. Her probation began on December 3,

2001. The probation officers in Gibson’s office substitute for each other.

Gibson has no knowledge as to whether or not Alexander had violated any of the terms

of her probation prior to April 29, 2005. Prior to April 29, 2005, Alexander’s probation had not

been revoked.

On April 29, 2005, Gibson received a telephone call from Prosecutor Tim Williamson

regarding Alexander. Williamson stated that there was possibly a marijuana patch grown by an

occupant of the Alexander residence as well as guns inside the house which would be clear

violations of her probation conditions. Gibson called Probation Officer Fenwick but she was on

vacation. Gibson believes that Officer Fenwick had also spoken with Prosecutor Williamson.

Probation Officer Fenwick advised Gibson to do a search of the Alexander home in Fenwick’s

absence. Gibson received directions to Alexander’s home from Williamson. 

Gibson believes that he telephoned the Drug Task Force that day. Gibson keeps notes

regarding his case activity. He made computer entries that day. These notes state that Gibson

called the prosecutor to get directions to the Alexander residence. 

Gibson wanted to do a probation search because there was a marijuana patch near the

Alexander residence and there were possibly guns inside her residence. The information created

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

a reasonable suspicion that there had been probation violations.

Gibson then made contact with Detective Mike May with the 18th West Judicial District

Drug Task Force. This task force covers Polk and Montgomery County. Gibson asked that

officers come with him. This is not documented in Gibson’s case paper work. Gibson stated

that, although he is entitled to conduct a search, he goes with police officers for his safety and

to have assistance in conducting the search. He asked Detective May to come with him because

Gibson was by himself and to assist in the search. Further, May knew the area. Gibson did not

normally work Montgomery County. Gibson rode with Deputy Campora because he had not

been to the Alexander residence before. The Alexander residence was in Oden, Arkansas.

Gibson and Officer Campora arrived at the Alexander residence first. The other officers

were behind them in their vehicles. Alexander was outside. Gibson identified himself and told

Alexander that he needed to do a search of Alexander’s residence for Officer Fenwick to see if

Alexander was in violation of her conditions. Gibson asked Alexander who else was in the

residence and she replied that the defendant, Virgil Butler, was there. Gibson and Officer

Campora followed Alexander into the residence. The other officers were still outside. Inside the

residence, Gibson saw a foot partially hidden by cabinetry and he ordered the subject to show his

hands and come outside. It was the defendant. The defendant complied the second time Gibson

commanded him to do so. Gibson asked the defendant his name and the defendant replied,

“You’ve got me.” The defendant was escorted out of the residence by Officer May and some

other officer. Gibson stayed inside.

The defendant seemed quite coherent. He did not want to talk with Gibson.

Prior to going to the residence Gibson had never met the defendant before and knew

nothing about him. The officers had stated that the defendant had a violent background and that

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

there was a body attachment warrant for his arrest. The defendant was behind on child support.

Gibson participated in the search of the residence. It was his understanding that the

defendant lived there also. Gibson found: a syringe in the cabinetry beside the bed, a .22 caliber

bullet, and a gun holster. Gibson did not see nor did he seize any firearms. As Gibson was

beginning to search the kitchen cabinet he found some bottles of pills. Detective May then

entered the residence. The other officers searched other areas of the residence.

Gibson has had training in the area of methamphetamine usage and approximately 75 per

cent of his case load are individuals who used methamphetamine, approximately 90 people. He

has seen syringes before. Methamphetamine is melted down using heat and then injected into

the veins using a syringe.

Gibson testified that he does not recall telling counsel for the defendant that officers

wanted to do a probation search of the Alexander residence.

According to Gibson, arrests are normally made on body attachment warrants and Gibson

has made such arrests at least 10 times in the past. Gibson has actually served over 100 warrants.

The Alexander residence was approximately 75 yards from the main highway and the

marijuana patch was approximately 25 yards on the other side of the main highway.

Mike May: Mike May is a senior investigator for the 19th West Drug Task Force. This

task force covers Polk and Montgomery counties. May mostly handles Montgomery County.

His supervisor is Prosecutor Tim Williamson. May has been a police officer for ten years and

he has had 700 hours of training in drug cases.

May identified the defendant, Virgil Butler, in the court room. May encountered the

defendant on April 29, 2005.

On April 29, 2005, May was notified by Deputy Campora that a small marijuana growing

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

operation had been found by the power company. May went with Forest Service Law

Enforcement Officer Tim Fincham and Deputy Campora to the plot. They then returned to the

prosecutor’s office.

Prosecutor Williamson decided to contact Probation Officer Vickie Fenwick because the

address right across from the grow operation came back to Virgil and Laura Alexander and

Alexander was on probation at the time. May had not met Alexander before April 29, 2005.

Probation Officer Frank Gibson contacted May after Officer Fenwick had contacted him.

May received a phone call from Gibson instructing him to meet Gibson at Pine Ridge. May

remembers only one telephone call that day from Gibson.

May, Gibson and Deputy Campora met at Pine Ridge and they proceeded to the residence.

Gibson requested that the officers go with him to do a probation search. Upon arrival at the

residence Gibson talked to Alexander. They entered the residence and the defendant came out.

May advised Butler that he had a body attachment for him and he placed the defendant under

arrest. Arkansas Game and Fish Officer Russ Carmack advised the defendant of his Miranda

rights and then May talked to the defendant. The defendant was verbally Mirandized. May saw

and heard this. 

May carries documents with which a person can say he has been Mirandized but he left

his copies in another vehicle. May does not know if the other officers at the scene had such

documents. May did not ask anyone if they had a Miranda rights form available. 

After the defendant was questioned he was mostly concerned about Ms. Alexander. He

said that she did not have anything to do with the grow operation across the road and that he did

not want her in trouble for it. The defendant was responsive to May’s questions. He appeared

competent. May has no information about the defendant’s mental health. 

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

May has assisted probation officers in searches numerous times before. He was there for

officer safety and to cover the area. May participated at the end of the search after a shotgun and

other things were located. May believes that Gibson and Deputy Campora searched while May

and Officers Carmack and Fincham were outside with the defendant. During the search the

following items were found: a tin container containing ten syringes, some rolling papers,

hemostats, a small pair of trimming scissors, a sawed off .12 gauge Mossburg that had been

partially disassembled, a Harrington-Richardson rifle of undetermined caliber, a small plastic

container containing 363 marijuana seeds. The sawed off shotgun was found under the mattress

of the bed in the front of the trailer. Tools were also seized to show garden cultivation. The

items found were seized and are held in evidence pending trial of this case.

The residence was 75 yards from a paved highway. The marijuana patch was located on

the other side of the highway and 25 yards from it. May, the defendant and one of the other

officers went across the road and looked at the patch. The defendant admitted that the patch was

his and he stated that he had a small grow operation. The nearest source of water was the

Alexander residence. There was a faint path leading from the residence to the patch. There were

four small plants in the patch. They were seized and forwarded to the Arkansas State Crime Lab

where they tested positive for the presence of marijuana.

The defendant was taken by Deputy Campora to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s

Office. He was interviewed there. That interview was taped. He was re-Mirandized. May read

the Miranda rights to the defendant. He signed a written form. He was questioned for

approximately 45 minutes. He appeared responsive to questions. He answered directly. He did

not hesitate or have problems giving legitimate responses to the questions. The transcript of the

interview of the defendant, which was conducted by May, reveals that the defendant stated that

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

he was taking Valium prescribed for him. Further, in the transcript, May states: “You are under

psychiatric care at this time, you were telling me.” 

During the interview, the defendant told of being involved in an exchange of gun fire at

the 22 Lounge in Paris, Arkansas in which the defendant shot and killed a person. May talked

to a gentlemen who had been sheriff at the time and he did not recall a homicide. During the

interview, May asked the defendant about various persons of interest in on-going drug

investigations, such as Charles Elliott, Tony Thacker and Buddy Ayers. The defendant’s answers

were responsive to the questions and the information was corroborated by previous intelligence.

April 29th was the first time May had encountered the defendant. As part of his routine,

prior to going to the residence, May ran an NCIC check of the defendant. He found convictions

for terroristic threatening and an aggravated assault as well as a body attachment in the amount

of $750.00. This raised the issue of officer safety.

The Alexander-Butler residence is located in a rural area and consisted of a small trailer

with one common room like a camper trailer along with two other sheds. The sheds contained

lumber, chicken wire and other farm stuff. The sheds were searched. The next residence is a

quarter of a mile away. 

May believed that officers possessed enough information to secure a search warrant. 

Laura L. Alexander: Laura L. Alexander testified that prior to leaving her house, before

testifying at the suppression hearing, she took valium, a methadone, a soma and an analor. She

stated that she is a chronic pain patient and has been on that kind of medication for a number of

years.

She lived with the defendant on April 29, 2005. Alexander was on probation for

possession of her own prescription of methadone. She was on probation for four years. She had

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

no violations of probation, passed every drug test, paid every fine and did everything she was

supposed to do. 

She has lived with the defendant for approximately five years. She was drawn to the

defendant due to his mental health condition. She got the defendant to see a psychiatrist and he

was seeing a psychiatrist in April of 2005. He either began seeing the psychiatrist during the

Christmas and New Years Holidays prior to April, 2005, or a year before that. Alexander’s

mother is a healing touch practitioner who worked with the defendant. 

The defendant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Alexander is also seeing a

psychiatrist for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The defendant has arthritis in his back, hip and knee. He cut his right knee with a chain

saw. He has high blood pressure. Alexander cannot confirm all of these conditions because the

defendant has no medical insurance. The defendant has flashbacks with the PTSD. He “will go

out of the world” and she has to “talk him back.”

Alexander stated that she had no idea that the defendant was growing marijuana across

the road. On April 29, 2005, she knew that the defendant was a convicted felon.

Discussion:

The defendant asks that (1) the items found during the search by law enforcement officers

of the residence of the defendant and Alexander conducted on April 29, 2005, be suppressed;

and, (2) that any statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officers after he was taken

into custody, be suppressed.

Search: With respect to the search of the residence, the defendant asserts that no officer

had the authority to enter the dwelling; that Probation Officer Gibson was outside of his

geographical jurisdiction; and, that the alleged “probation search” of the dwelling was in actuality

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

a “ruse” in aid of a police investigation.

Arkansas Probation Officer Frank Gibson testified that he works in Arkansas’ 18th West

Judicial District, which covers Polk and Montgomery Counties. He stated, without contradiction,

that he supervises probationers in Montgomery County. The Butler-Alexander residence and

property was located at Oden, Arkansas, which is located in Montgomery County. Accordingly,

the probation officer was operating within the geographical territory of his district at the time of

the search.

The defendant also contends that the search of the residence was unreasonable under the

Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the defendant argues that Probation Officer Gibson did not

have reasonable suspicion that probationer Alexander was engaged in criminal activity, and, that

the search was performed solely to help law enforcement officers evade the requirements of the

Fourth Amendment. This assertion has been referred to as the “stalking horse” theory. See

United States v. McFarland, 116 F.3d 316, 318 (8th Cir. 1997)(“a parole search is unlawful when

it is nothing more than a ruse for a police investigation.”); see also United States v. Scott, 945

F.Supp. 205 (D.S.D. 1996)(using the term “stalking horse”). This theory was rejected by the

Supreme Court in United States v. Knights, 483, U.S. 868 (1987), where the court concluded that

a probationary search pursuant to a condition of probation is to be subjected to the Fourth

Amendment reasonableness balancing test and that no inquiry as to “official purpose” is required.

See Knights, 534 U.S. at 122; see also United States v. Brown, 346 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir.

2003)(“... the Knights case teaches that traditional Fourth Amendment analysis-not official

purpose-determines whether a probationary search is constitutional.”).

Here, the order placing Alexander on probation in 2001 contains the explicit condition

that she must “submit [her]...property, place of residence ... to search and seizure at any time day

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

or night, with or without a search warrant, whenever requested by the probation officer.”

Government Ex. #1 Although Alexander’s probation was reduced to unsupervised status in

2004, the order specifically required that Alexander “...comply with all probation conditions in

the original Order...” Government Ex. #2 Thus, on the day in question, Alexander, who resided

with the defendant in the Oden residence, was subject to a search condition.

In such circumstance, “the traditional Fourth Amendment balancing test” is to be used

“to determine the search’s constitutionality.” Id. Under this frame work:

...when a probationer is subject to a probationary search condition, the Fourth

Amendment permits an officer to search pursuant to that condition without a

warrant based only upon that officer’s reasonable suspicion that the probationer

is violating his probation’s terms...

Id. In addition to a search condition, Alexander was also subject to conditions of probation

which prohibited her from committing an “offense punishable by imprisonment,” or from “using

or possessing any scheduled controlled substance unless prescribed” by a physician.

Government Ex. #1 Prosecutor Williamson reported to Probation Officer Gibson and

Alexander’s supervising probation officer, Vicky Fenwick, that a marijuana patch had been

discovered by power company personnel approximately 100 yards from Alexander’s rural

Montgomery County residence. 

Drug Task Force Agent May testified that he had been advised by Deputy Campora that

a small marijuana “grow operation” had been found. May went with a Forest Service Ranger and

Deputy Campora to the location of the plot. May then reported the situation to the prosecutor.

Although Gibson testified that Williamson also reported that weapons might be present

in the residence, this seems to be of secondary importance, and, indeed, no evidence was

presented as to why law enforcement officers reached such a conclusion. We conclude that the

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-12-

report to the probation officers, by the prosecutor, of the existence of a marijuana patch near

Alexander’s home, alone created “reasonable suspicion” that Alexander was violating terms of

probation. Gibson was asked to conduct the search by Alexander’s supervising probation officer,

Officer Fenwick. Accordingly, Gibson was constitutionally permitted to search the residence.

Id. at 810 (probation officer had reasonable suspicion that probationer was violating his

probation terms where probationer was advised, by a drug task force agent, that the probationer’s

drug involvement was being investigated) 

Having constitutional authority to conduct the search, Gibson was also permitted to enlist

the aid of law enforcement officers in accomplishing that task. Gibson testified that he asked

officers to accompany him out of concern for his safety. This explanation is corroborated by the

fact that: prior to the search he was told that the defendant had a violent background and was

behind on child support payments, Gibson was not familiar with the area of Montgomery County

in question, Gibson clearly directed the officers in assisting him, he arrived at the residence first

and entered the residence first, and, he and the officers searched different areas of the residence.

As stated in Brown:

Under Knights, we must balance any additional privacy intrusion resulting from

the presence of the additional personnel against the legitimate interests advanced

by their presence...Probation offices are neither designed nor staffed to conduct

these types of searches alone. See Reyes, 283 F.3d at 469 (The “‘assistance of

other law enforcement officers for protection ... and for taking possession of

contraband is appropriate and recommended.’”)(quoting David N. Adair, Jr.,

Probation Officer Searches, 62 Fed. Probation 68 (June 1998)). Probation

officers often must bring law enforcement along to ensure the probation officer’s

safety. See id. We hold the governmental interest in ensuring probation officer

safety outweighs any marginal, additional intrusion into Brown’s privacy

resulting from the task force agents’ presence. In short, when a probationary

condition authorizes searches by probation officers, the Fourth Amendment does

not require probation officers to choose between endangering themselves by

searching alone and foregoing the search because they lacked the resources and

expertise necessary to search alone safely. Thus, the Knights balance does not

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1With regard to the statements made, both at the residence and at the Sheriff’s Office, the defendant does not contend that valid

Miranda warnings were not given. Instead, the defendant asserts that he did not have the mental competence to knowingly and intelligently

waive his privilege against self incrimination or his right to counsel.

-13-

change and the government can prevail if [the probation officer] had a reasonable

suspicion that Brown was violating the terms of his probation.

Id. at 812. 

We therefore conclude that the participation of other law enforcement officers in the

search was constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, the evidence discovered in the residence

need not be suppressed.

Statements: According to the testimony of Agent May, the defendant was taken into

custody as he exited the residence based on the outstanding body attachment. According to the

officer, Arkansas Game and Fish Officer Russ Carmack then advised the defendant of his

Miranda rights. The defendant then spoke with the officers admitting that the marijuana patch

found across the road was his. The defendant was then taken by officers to the Montgomery

County Sheriff’s Office where May questioned him after again advising the defendant of his

Miranda rights.1 

"[T]he Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prohibits admitting

statements given by a suspect during 'custodial interrogation' without a prior warning." Illinois

v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 296 (1990) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)).

Miranda provides that the accused must be advised prior to custodial interrogation “that he has

the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he

has a right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be

appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at

478-79. A waiver of the privilege is valid only if it is made voluntarily, knowingly, and

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2Valium is indicated for the mnanagement of anxiety disorders for the short-term relief of the symptoms of anxiety. Anxiety or

tension associated with the stress of everyday life usually does not require treatment with an anxiolytic. ...Side effects most commonly

reported are drowsiness, fatigue and ataxia, infrequently encountered were confusion, constipation, depression, diplopia, dysarthria,

headache, hypotension, incontinence, jaundice, changes in libido, nausea, changes in salivation, skin rash, slurred speech, tremor, urinary

retention, vertigo and blurred vision. Physicians’ Desk Reference (hereinafter “PDR”), p. 2822 (60th Ed.2006). 

Soma (carisprodol), is a muscle relaxant mediation that affects the communication between the brain and the spinal cord (central

nervous system). It acts as a sedative, which most likely causes its muscle-relaxing effect. It is recommended only for initial, short-term

treatment of neck pain. Side effects include possible addiction or dependence, drowsiness, dry mouth and urinary retention. See

www.webmd.com.

Methadone acts on specific receptors in the brain and spinal cord to decrease the feeling of pain and to reduce the emotional

response to pain. The action of methadone is similar to other synthetic (man-made), medications in the morphine category (opioids).

Substances that are derived directly from the opium plant (such as heroin, morphine and codeine), are known as opiates. Methadone is used

-14-

intelligently. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 

A waiver is voluntary if it is "the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than

intimidation, coercion, or deception." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89

L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). "[C]oercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a

confession is not 'voluntary.' " Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93

L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). “A waiver is ‘knowing and intelligent’ where it is made with full awareness

of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of abandoning the right,

and a waiver is ‘voluntary’ where the court can determine that the waiver was a product of the

suspect's free and deliberate choice, and not the product of intimidation, coercion, or deception.”

Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986).

The defendant contends that he suffered from mental illness which prevented him from

knowingly and voluntarily choosing to speak to the officers. However, the only evidence to this

effect is the testimony of the defendant’s friend and fellow resident, Laura Alexander. She

testified that the defendant was under psychiatric care and suffered from Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder and the effects of physical and sexual abuse as a child. It is found that Alexander’s

credibility is diminished by her admission that she had taken a potent combination of

prescription, narcotic medications prior to testifying at the suppression hearing.2 Further,

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

to control cancer pain or chronic pain not caused by cancer when other opioids, such as morphine, have not been effective. Side effects

include drowsiness, lightheadedness, weakness and fatigue, euphoria, dry moth, difficulty urinating and breathing, constipation and skin

reactions. See www.webmd.com. 

Analor is used to treat both tension and migraine headaches. Common side effects include: stomach or intestinal irritation;

involuntary quivering; fast heartbeat; drowsiness; and, dizz iness; voluntary movement difficulty. Infrequent side effects include:

depression; confusion; and, over excitement. See www.webmd.com. 

-15-

although Alexander described the defendant as suffering from certain mental conditions, she gave

no testimony indicating that the defendant, on April 29, 2005, was incapable of voluntarily,

knowingly and intelligently waiving his privilege against self incrimination by making

statements to the officers. 

Agent May also acknowledged that the defendant told him, during the questioning at the

Sheriff’s Office, that he was receiving psychiatric treatment and that he was taking valium,

however, Probation Officer Gibson and May testified that the defendant appeared competent.

May testified that the defendant was responsive to questions, answered directly and did not

hesitate or have difficulty in responding. Further, according to May, the defendant gave

information as to individuals which was corroborated by other independent investigation. No

expert or other disinterested testimony was presented to the court with respect to this issue. 

The defendant points to his assertion, during interrogation, that he had committed a

homicide in Paris, Arkansas, years earlier, as indicative of a delusional state. Although May

could not confirm this statement through a former Sheriff in Paris, the record is simply silent as

to whether or not the incident referred to by the defendant actually occurred.

From the foregoing, it is found that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently

waived his privilege against self-incrimination by making statements after he was advised of his

Miranda rights.

We conclude, therefore, that the defendant’s motion to suppress with respect to his

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-16-

statements made while in custody must be denied.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we recommend that the motion to suppress

be denied in its entirety. 

The parties eight (8) days from receipt of our report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 6th day of July 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:06-cr-60001-RTD Document 41 Filed 07/06/06 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: <pageID>