FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 02 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 04 2- CR-WCO-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES R. VANBRACKLE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 23 , 20 10 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ch arl es R. Vanb rack le ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forrece iv in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 25 2( a)(2 )(A) an d 2 25 6( 8) (A). On

ap pe al , Vanb rack le arg ue s tha t (1 ) th e se archof h is ho m e was il le ga l b ecau se th e se arch warran t l ack edpro babl e cau se , as the supp orti ng affi da vi t fa il edto id en ti fy a n ex us be twee n t he cri m in al act iv it y an d Van br ack le ’s ho m e; (2) if t he search warra ntaffi da vi t was de fic ie nt , th e g oo d fa it h e xc ep ti on to th e ex cl us io nary rul e co ul d n otbe ap pl ie d b ecau se th e d efi ci en cy inth e se arch warran t af

fid av itwas kn own to th e ag en t wh o app li edforan d e xe cu te d t he sea rch warran t; an d (3 ) Vanbr ack le ’s st at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers du rin g t he ex ecu ti on of th e se arch warran t wer e in vo lu nt ary an d, thu s, i na dm is si bl e. Not ab ly, ne it he r th e m ag is tra te jud ge no r th e d is tri ctco urt ad dr es se d whe th er the sea rch warran t es tabl is he d p ro babl e cau se th ata se arch of Vanbr ack le ’s res id en ce wo ul d re su ltindi sc ov ery of ev id en ce tha t h e h adrece iv ed ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Rathe r, bo th pre su m edth atth e supp orti ng affi da vi t fa il edto id en ti fy a ne xu s b etweenth e cri m in al act iv it y an d t he res id en ce t o b e se arch edbu t fo un d tha t the go odfai th ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e ap pl ie d. Th eref

or e, li ke th e d is tri ctco urt, we d ecl in e to ad dr es s wh ethe r th e aff id av itest ab li sh ed pr ob ab le cau se forth e se arch warran t an d i ns te adad dr es s o nl y th e g oo d fa it h ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry rul e an d t he vo lu nt ari ne ss of Va nb rack le ’s st at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t. 2I. Goo d F ai th Exce pt io n t o t he Excl us io na ry Ru le W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l i ss ue of wh ethe r th e g oo d fa it h e xc ep ti onto th e ex cl us io na ry

rul e, as art ic ul at edin Uni te d Sta tes v. Le on , 46 8 U.S. 8 97 , 10 4 S . Ct . 34 05 (19 84 ), ap pl ie s t o asea rch , bu t “ th e u nd erl y in g fa ct s upo n wh ic h tha t de te rm in at io n i s b as edare b in di ng on ap pe al un le ss cle arl y erro ne ou s.” Uni te d St at es v. Rob in so n , 33 6 F .3d12 93 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro vi de s fo r th e ri gh t t o b e fre e o f un reas on ab le se arch es an d s ei zu res , andm an da te s t ha t “ no W arra nt s s ha ll is su e, bu t upo n pr ob ab le cau se , supp orte d b y Oath or a ffi rm at io n, an d p art ic ul arl y de sc rib in g t he pl ace t o b e se arch ed , andth e p ers on s o r th in gs to be sei zed .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. In o rd er t o e st ab li sh pro babl e cau se , th e aff id av itsupp orti ng th e se arch warra ntm

us t “ st at e fac ts su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify a con cl us io n t ha t ev id en ce o r co nt rab an d wi ll pro babl y be fou ndat t he pre m is es to be sea rch ed .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mar ti n , 29 7 F .3d13 08 , 13 14 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ Evi de nc e se iz edas t he res ul t o f anil le ga l s earc h m ay no t b e u se d b y

th e g ov ern m en t i n a subs eque ntcri m in al pro se cu ti on .” Id. at 1 31 2. “ The ex cl us io na ry rul e, as itis kn own , is a jud ic ia ll y

crea te d re m edy

de si gn edto saf

eg ua rdFo urth Am en dm en t rig ht s g en eral ly thro ug h i ts de te rren t ef fect .” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . In Leo n , th e Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the go odfai thex cep ti on to th e 3ex cl us io na ry rul e “ st an ds forth e p rin ci pl e th atco urts ge ne ral ly sho ul d n otren de r in adm is si bl e ev id en ce o bt ai ne d b y po li ce o ffi cers act in g i n re as on ab le rel ia nc e up on a se arch warran t tha t i s u lt im at el y fou ndto be un supp orte d b y pro babl e cau se .” Id. at 1 31 3. Th e ex cep ti on ap pl ie s i n a ll bu t fo urcir cu m st an ces , two of whi chVanb rack le rel ie s upo n i n t he in st an t ca se : (1 ) whe re the warran t i s b as ed on anaffi da vi t “ so lac ki ng in in di ci a o f pr ob ab le cau se as t o re nd er o ffi ci al be li ef in it s ex is te nc e en ti rel y

un reas on ab le ,” an d (2 ) whe re the “ warra ntis so faci al ly de fic ie nt —i .e., infai li ng to pa rti cu la riz e th e p la ce t o b e se arch edor t he th in gs to be sei zed—tha t the ex ecu ti ng off ic ers can no t re as on ab ly pres um e itto be va li d.” Id. (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . In d et erm in in g wh ethe r th es e ex cep ti on s ap pl y , we co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng is su an ce o f th e warra nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Acc ar do , 74 9 F .2d14 77 , 14 81 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ).

“ The Leo n go odfai th ex cep ti on requi res supp res si on on ly if th e o ffi cers were d is ho ne stor r eck le ss in pre pa rin g t he ir a ffi da vi t o r co ul d n otha ve ha rb or ed anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b el ie f in th e ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se .” Mar ti n , 29 7 F.3 d a t 1 31 3 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ The pu rp os e o f th e ex cl us io na ry rul e is to de te r un la wfu l p ol ic e m is co nduc t; th eref or e, whe n o ffi cers en ga ge inob jecti ve ly reas on ab le law en fo rcem en t ac ti vi ty andha ve act edingo odfai th when ob ta in in g a se arch warran t fr om

a jud ge or m ag is tra te , th e Leo n go odfai th ex cep ti onap pl ie s.”

4Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . “ It i s n eces sa ry to co ns id er the ob

jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss , no t o nl y of t he off

ic ers who ev en tu al ly execu te d awarran t, b utals o o f th e o ffi cers who ori gi na ll y

ob ta in editor wh o p ro vi de d i nf orm at io n m at eri al to th e p ro babl ecau se de te rm in at io n.” Leo n , 46 8 U.S. at92 3 n .24 , 10 4 S . Ct. at34 20 n. 2 4. Th us , th e g oo d fa it h i nqui ry

ask s wh ethe r a rea so nabl y well -tr ai ne d o ffi cer wo ul d h av e kn own th atth e se archwas i ll eg al be cau se hi s af fid av itfai le d t o e st ab li sh pro babl e cau se . Mal le

y v. Bri gg s , 47 5 U.S. 3 35 , 34 5, 1 06 S. Ct. 1 09 2, 1 09 8 (1 98 6) . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the go odfai thex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry

rul e ap pl ie s t o t he affi da vi t u nd erl y in g t he sea rch warran t o f Vanbr ack le ’s res id en ce. Fi rs t, the affi da vi t was no t “ so lac ki ng inin di ci a o f pr ob ab le cau se as t o re nd er o ffi ci al be li ef i n i ts ex is te nc e en ti rel y un reas on ab le .” Se e Ma rt in , 29 7 F .3dat 1 31 3. To th e co ntrary, it was reas on ab le forAgen ts Bl ackwell an d Witric k t o b el ie ve th atth e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e aff id av it was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt afin di ng of p ro babl e cau se th atev id en ce o f th e u nl awfu l rece ip t o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy woul d b e fo un d a t Vanbr ack le ’s res id en ce. The fact s al le ge d wi th inth e se arch warran t af fid av itin di cat e th at(1) scr eenna m es reg is te redto Vanb rack le at 2 53 A Litt le Riv er Lan e, Rab un Gap, Geo rg ia , were im pl ic at edin fou r othe r cas es in vo lv in g t he tra ns m is si on or s ol ic it at io n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy ov er the in te rn et ; (2 ) Vanbr ack le co nt in ue d t o re si de at 2 53 A Litt le 5Ri ve r Lan e, Rab un Gap, Geo rg ia ; (3 ) Vanbr ack le was b el ie ve d t o b e a co ll ect orof

ch il d p orno gr ap hy bas edon hi s ac ti vi ti es of s en di ng an d re cei vi ng ch il d po rn og rap hy andreque st s t o e xc ha ng e p ic tu res of s ki m pi ly dres se d c hi ldrenwith ot he r AOL us ers ; an d (4 ) th e te nd en cy of c ol le ct or s o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, suc h a s Vanbr ack le , was t o re ta inan d s to re i m ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy onth ei r co m pu te rs . Furt he r, atth e supp res si on he ari ng , Ji m Pers in ge r, a co m

pu te r fo ren si c cy be rcri m es sp eci al is t, t es ti fie d t ha t p eo pl e who co ll ectch il d p orno gr ap hy do no t no rm al ly down lo adch il d p orno gr ap hy at a p ub li c p la ce, b uttypic al ly vie w itat th ei r res id en ce o r pl ace o f em pl oym en t. Whi le Vanb rack le arg ue s t ha t thi s ev id en ce fa il edto est ab li sh th atun la wfu l e-m ai l tran sm is si on s wer e se ntor r ecei ve d b y hi m athi s re si de nc e, he pro vi de s n o le ga l ci ta ti on to supp ort h is co nt en ti on th atIP ad dr es s i nf orm at io n i s re qu ire d t o es tabl is h ali nkbe twee n a n i nd iv idua l’s el ect ro ni c tr an sm is si on of c hi ld po rn og rap hy andth atsame ind iv idua l’s p ers on al res id en ce. Cf . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bac h , 40 0 F .3d62 2, 6 27 –2 8 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ) (rejec ti ng ap pe ll an t’s as se rti on th ata va li d warran t fo r se arch in g h is ho m e co m pu te r co ul d n otha ve be enob ta in ed witho utcro ss refe ren ces be twee n h is tel ep ho ne reco rd s an d IP s p ro vi de d b y hi s se rv ic e p ro vi de r). Alt ho ug h IP ad dr es s i nf orm at io n c ou ldha ve de fin it iv el y sh own th ata co m

pu te r us edat Van br ack le ’s ho m e rec ei ve d t he im ag es inqu es ti on , se e 6Uni te d Sta tes v. Per ri ne, 51 8 F .3d11 96 , 12 02 –0 3, 1 20 5 (1 0t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ho ld in g

th atth e se arch warran t af fid av itest ab li sh edpro babl e cau se to sea rch th e ap pe ll an t’s h om e in pa rt b ecau se itin cl ud edIP ad dr es s i nf orm at io n a ss oc ia te d with t he ap pe ll an t’s s cree n n am e), Ag en t Bl ackwell was o nl y ob li ga te d t o p ro vi de en ou ghfact s t o s ho w a fai r pr ob ab il it y th atev id en ce o f a cri m e wou ldbe fou ndat Vanbr ack le ’s res id en ce. Ill in ois v. Ga tes , 46 2 U.S. 2 13 , 23 5, 1 03 S. Ct. 2 31 7, 23 30 (19 83 ) (s ta ti ng th at“ on ly the pro babi li ty, no t a p rima facie sh owi ng , of cri m in al act iv it y

is th e st an dardof p ro babl e cau se (qu ot at io n o m it te d) ). Agen t Bl ackwell sat is fie d t hi s o bl ig at io n, an d i t was no t u nr eas on ab le forAgen ts Bl ackwell or Witric k t o c on cl ud e th atso m eo ne who was c on ne ct ed , by us e o f sc reen na m es reg is te redto hi m at h is pe rs on al res id en ce, wit h fo urot he r in ve st ig at io ns in vo lv in g t he tra ns m is si onor s ol ic it at io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy ov er th e in te rn et , was a c ol le ct orof c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. Fu rth er, b as edon th e p ro fil e in fo rm at io n t ha t co ll ect or s o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy retai ne d andorg an iz edth ei r co ll ect io ns on th ei r pe rs on al co m pu te rs an d t he factth atVanb rack le co nt in ue d t o res id e at25 3A Li tt le Riv er Lan e, Rab un Gap, Geo rg ia , th e ag en ts co ul d h av e reas on ab ly infe rredth atVanb rack le st or edhi s co ll ect io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy on a h om e co m

pu te r. Se e Perri ne , 51 8 F .3dat 1 20 6– 07 (“ The ob se rv at io n t ha t im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy are li ke ly to b e h oa rd edby pers on s i nt eres te d i n 7th os e m at eri al s i n t he pri va cy of t he ir h om es is supp orte d b y co m m onsen se an d th e cas es .” (quo ta ti on om it te d) ); Uni te d Sta tes v. C hr ob ak , 28 9 F .3d10 43 , 10 46 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ) (h ol di ng th atanaffi da vi t es tabl is he d asu ffi ci en t n ex us be twee n th e d efen da nt ’s res id en ce an d the tra ns fer o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy becaus e it pr ov id ed“ ev id en ce tha t h e li ve d t he re an d t ha t, i n h er ex pe rie nc e, pe do ph il es m ai nt ai n t he ir c hi ldpo rn og rap hy in asec ur e p la ce”) . Mo reo ve r, we rejectVanb rack le ’s su gg es ti on th atth e se arch warran t was de fic ie ntbe cau se Bla ckwell fai le d t o re fere nc e in th e aff id av itth e ab se nc e o f IP ad dr es se es or the factth atno wire le ss ne two rkco nn ect io n was fou ndat h is ho m e. Vanbr ack le ha s n otall eg edth atth es e o m is si on s wer e d el ib erat el y fal se or reck le ss . Se e Madiw al e v. S av ai ko , 11 7 F .3d13 21 , 13 26 –2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (“ [A] w arra ntaffi da vi t v io la te s t he Fo urth Am en dm en t wh enitco nt ai ns om is si on s m ad e in te nt io na ll y

or wi th a reck le ss di sr eg ardforth e acc ur acy of th e aff id av it .” (quo ta ti onom it te d) ). In a ny even t, the ex cl us io n o f IP ad dr es s i nf orm at io n i s n ot di sp os it iv e o f th e p ro babl e cau se de te rm in at io n, se e Bac h , 40 0 F .3dat 6 27 –2 8, n or wou ldth e ab se nc e o f a wir el es s i nt ern etne two rkhave pre ve nt eda fi nd in g o f pr ob ab le cau se , gi ve n t he ex is te nc e o f ot he r m ean s o f acc es si ng th e in te rn et , se e Madiw al e , 11 7 F .3dat 1 32 7 (s ta ti ng th at“ ev enin te nt io na l o r rec kl es s o m is si on s wil l i nv al id at e a warr an t o nl y if i nc lu si on of t he om it te d fa ct s wo ul d h av e

8pr ev en te d afin di ng of p ro babl e cau se ”).

Insu m , Vanb rack le ha s fa il edto est ab li sh th atAgen t Bl ackwell was

“ di sh on es t o r rec kl es s i n p rep ari ng [hi s] affi davi t” or t ha t Bl ackwell an d Witric k co ul d “ no t h av e h arb or edanob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e b el ie f in th e ex is te nc e o f pr ob ab le cau se ” o n t he affi da vi t’s fa ct s. Mar ti n , 29 7 F .3dat 1 31 3 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Accor di ng ly, th e aff id av itwas n ot“ so lac ki ng inin di ci a o f pr ob ab le cau se as t o re nd er o ffi ci al be li ef i n i ts ex is te nc e en ti rel y un reas on ab le .” Id. W e al so rejectVanb rack le ’s sec on d c la im th atth e “ warra ntis so faci al ly de fic ie nt —i .e., infai li ng to pa rti cu la riz e th e p la ce t o b e se arch edor t he th in gs to be sei zed—tha t the ex ecu ti ng off ic ers can no t re as on ab ly pres um e itto be va li d.” Id. Vanb rack le ha s n otsh own th atth e warra ntlac ke d p art ic ul ari ty in t erm s o f th e pl ace t o b e se arch edor i te m s t o b e se iz ed . To th e co nt rary, the wa rran t d es cri be d an d p ro vi de d d ire ct io ns to th e res id en ce at25 3A Li tt le Riv er Lan e, Rab unGap, Geo rg ia , andth e warrantid en ti fie d e le ve n p art ic ul ar ca te go rie s o f ev id en ce tha t co ul d b e se iz ed . Reject in g b ot h o f Vanbr ack le ’s cha ll en ge s, we co nc lu de th atth e di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t the Leo n go odfai th ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry

rul e ap pl ie d. II. Adm is si bi li ty of Vanbr ack le ’s Sta te m en ts Vanbr ack le ne xtarg ue s t ha t h is st at em en ts du rin g t he sea rch were 9in adm is si bl e b ecau se th e ci rcu m st an ces un de r whi ch he m ad e th e st at em en ts were

in he ren tl y

co erci ve . The d is tri ctco urt’s u lt im at e co nc lu si on on th e v ol un tarin es s of a co nf es si on , or t he waiv er o f ri gh ts un de r Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 4 36 , 86 S. Ct. 1 60 2 (1 96 6) , “ rai se s que st io ns of l aw to be rev ie wedde no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Bar bo ur , 70 F.3d58 0, 5 84 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e de te rm in e whe th er a s ta te m en t was m ad e v ol un ta ril y , andth us was “ th e p ro du ctof aness en ti al ly free an d u nc on st rai ne d c ho ic e,” b y ex am in in g the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Hub ba rd v. Hal ey , 31 7 F .3d12 45 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Und er Mir an da , off

ic ers m us t ad vi se anin di vi du al who is incu st od y of t he fo ll owi ng : (1 ) hi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t; (2) th at , if h e ch oo se s t o s pe ak , anyth in g he says can be us edag ai ns t h im in co urt; (3) hi s ri gh t t o c on su ltwith alawyer and ha ve hi s l awy er b e p res en t dur in g i nt erro ga ti on ; an d (4 ) anex pl an at io n t ha t, i f he is in di ge nt , a lawyer wil l b e ap po in te d t o re pr es en t h im . 38 4 U.S. at46 7– 73 , 86 S. Ct . at 1 62 4– 27 . An in di vi du al m ay effec ti ve ly w ai ve th es e ri gh ts “pr ov id edth e waiv er i s m ad e v ol un ta ril y , kn owi ng ly andin te ll ig en tl y .” Id. at 4 44 , 86 S. Ct. at16 12 . For i nc ul pa to ry

st at em en ts to be co ns ti tu ti on al ly adm is si bl e ag ai ns t a de fen da nt , th e wai ve r m

us t h av e b een (1) “ vo lu nt ary in th e se ns e th atitwas t he pr oduc t o f a fre e an d d el ib erat e ch oi ce ra th er tha n i nt im id at io n, co erci on , or de cep ti on ”; an d (2 ) “ m ad e wit h aful l awaren es s o f bo th th e n atur e o f th e ri gh t 10be in g aba nd on edan d t he co ns eque nc es of t he de ci si onto ab an do n i t.” Bar bo ur ,

70 F.3dat 5 85 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Stat em en ts ob ta in edinvi ol at io n o f Miran da , whe th er ex cu lp at ory

or i nc ul pa to ry , are n otadm is si bl e attri al . Mir an da , 38 4 U.S. at44 4, 8 6 S . Ct. at16 12 . The go ve rn m en t m

us t “pr ov e b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntvo lu nt ari ly, kn owi ng ly, an d i nt el li ge nt ly w ai ve d h is Mir an da rig ht s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ber na l-Be ni te z , 59 4 F .3d13 03 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. de ni ed , Cerva nt es -Guzma n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 12 1, an d c er t. d en ie d , 13 0 S. Ct . 21 23 , an d p et it io n f or cer t. f il ed , (U.S. Ju n 0 2, 2 01 0) (No. 1 0- 55 30 ). Mo reo ve r, “ th e st an da rdforev al ua ti ng th e v ol un ta rin es s o f a co nf es si on is whe th er a p ers on m ad e anin de pe nd en t an d i nf orm edch oi ce o f hi s o wn fr ee wi ll , po ss es si ng th e cap ab il it y to do so , hi s wi ll no t b ei ng ov erb orne by the pre ss ur es an d c irc um st an ces swi rli ng aro un d h im .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C as ta ne da -Ca st an ed

a , 72 9 F .2d13 60 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (quo ta ti onan d c it at io n o m it te d) .

“ Vol un ta rin es s d ep en ds onth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d m us t b e ev al ua te d on a cas e-b y -cas e b as is .” Id. Am on g t he fact or s we c on si de r are “ th e d efen da nt ’s in te ll ig en ce, the len gt h o f hi s d et en ti on , th e n atur e o f th e in te rro ga ti on , th e u se of an y ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t h im , or t he us e o f an y pro m is es or i nduc em en ts by po li ce.” Hub ba rd , 31 7 F .3dat 1 25 3. Fu rth er, “ a si gn ed Mir an da waiv er fo rm is 11us ua ll y

stro ng pro of

th ata su sp ectvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig ht s, [b ut ] itis no t co nc lu si ve on th is is su e.” Har t v. At t’yGen. o f Sta te of Fla . , 32 3 F .3d88 4, 8 93 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces de m on st rat e th atVanb rack le ’s st at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers were vo lu nt ary. Befo re Bl ackwell an d Witric k p ro ceed edwith a ny qu es ti on in g, Vanbr ack le affi rm edth athe was wi ll in g t o s pe akwith t he ag en ts , andth e ag en ts advi se d h im

of h is rig ht s an d t he na tu re o f th ei r in ve st ig at io n. Bo th anau di o reco rd in g a nda si gn edwaiv er fo rm do cu m en t tha t Vanbr ack le ha d b een in fo rm ed of hi s Mir an da rig ht s b efo re h e co ns en te d t o b e in te rv ie wed . Se e id. Vanb rack le in di cat edon th e wai ve r-o f-ri gh ts form th athe ha d o bt ai ne d fo ury ears of c ol le ge educ at io n. Se e Hub ba rd , 31 7 F .3dat 1 25 3. Whil e ap pr ox im at el y eig htlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers pa rti ci pa te d i n t he ex ecu ti on of t he sea rchwarran t, s om e o f who m ha d t he ir g un s drawnup on en try, nei th er Bl ackwell no r W it ric k d rew the ir gu ns durin g t he in te rv ie w, andno on e st oo d g uardov er Vanbr ack le . W it ric k a nd Bl ackwell in te rv ie wedVanb rack le at h is ki tc he n t ab le , whi le ot he r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cers ph y si cal ly searc he d t he ho m e an d c on du ct eda fo ren si c se arch of h is co m

pu te r. Duri ng th e in te rv ie w, Vanb rack le was n otha nd cu ffed , an d h e d idno t atan y

po in t as k t o s to p t he qu es ti on in g, n ordi d h e reque stan

12at to rn ey . Furt he r, th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e ag en ts m ad e an y pro m is es or th reat s t o i nduc e h is st at em en ts . Se e id. In s um , Vanb rack le ’s po st -Mir an da st at em en ts were n otin vo lu nt ary in th atth ey were n otth e p ro du ctof “ in ti m id at io n, co erci on , or d ecep ti on .” Bar bo ur , 70 F.3dat 5 85 . Thu s, the di stric t co urt d idno t err i n d eny in g Van br ack le ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s h is st at em en ts , andwe affi rm Vanbr ack le ’s con vi ct io n. AFFIR MED. 1

Appellant’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 1 13