IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

SCOTT A. REYNOLDS, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cr-240(2) 

Judge Peter C. Economus

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Scott A. Reynold’s Motion 

to Suppress Statements. (Dkt. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is 

DENIED. 

I.

The Defendant is charged, along with Co-Defendant Timothy L. Hale, with knowingly 

possessing a firearm with an altered serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). (See Dkt. 

1 at 1.) He now moves to suppress statements made to ATF Special Agent James Bajus and 

Columbus Police Officer Jerry Orick during an encounter that occurred on July 16, 2010 at the 

Defendant’s residence. Bajus and Orick were investigating the Defendant in connection with a 

theft of firearms from an individual named Robert White. The Defendant moves to suppress the 

statements at issue on the grounds that they were made while in custody in the absence of 

Miranda warnings. 

II.

A hearing was held on the Defendant’s motion on May 15, 2013. During the hearing, the 

Government called both Bajus and Orick as witnesses. The Defendant called no witnesses. 

While there were minor variations between the testimony of Bajus and Orick, their accounts of 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

what transpired during their encounter with the Defendant were consistent for purposes relevant 

to the Court’s consideration of the Defendant’s motion to suppress. 

 During the afternoon of July 16, 2010, Bajus and Orick arrived at the Defendant’s 

residence located at 3300 Oakland Hills Drive, Pickerington, Ohio in an unmarked car. Both 

officers were wearing civilian clothing, and, while armed, their weapons were not visible. They 

sought to interview the Defendant in connection with their investigation into the theft of firearms 

from Robert White because they had identified the Defendant as being possibly involved with

the theft.

 They parked their car in the driveway, walked onto the porch, and knocked on the door. 

The Defendant answered the door and the officers introduced themselves and showed their 

credentials. According to Bajus, he informed the Defendant that the Defendant was free to 

terminate the interaction at any time, but the Defendant nevertheless agreed to speak to the 

officers and exited the house on his own volition. The officers then began to interview the 

Defendant on the porch of the residence. At some point, their discussions were interrupted by 

the Defendant’s cousin who emerged from the house. The cousin presented an identification at 

the request of the officers, and then went back into the house at Orick’s request. Subsequently, 

according to Orick, the interview was moved to the driveway of the residence to ensure that it 

would be more difficult for anyone in the house to overhear the conversations. 

 Sometime after the discussion was moved to the driveway, the Defendant’s sister arrived 

on the scene. She was familiar with the officers as she had also recently been questioned by 

them in connection with their investigation (she had worked as an in-home caregiver for Robert 

White), and berated her brother for talking to them. At this point, the Defendant requested that 

the interview be moved into the officer’s car. After relocating into the car, with the Defendant in 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

the front passenger seat, Orick in the driver’s seat, and Bajus in the rear seat, the Defendant’s 

mother arrived on the scene. The Defendant then allegedly informed the officers that he would 

provide information on the firearm theft and the location of the missing weapons after his mother 

and sister went into the house. However, the Defendant’s mother placed a phone call to her 

brother (the Defendant’s uncle), a police officer in Wilmington, Delaware, seeking advice on 

handling the situation. At one point, the Defendant’s mother went so far as to put Orick on the 

phone with the uncle for a discussion (Orick declined to provide details of the investigation to 

the uncle).

The Defendant’s mother then relayed to the Defendant that the uncle had said that the 

Defendant should not speak to the officers unless they had a search warrant. The Defendant then 

announced to the officers that he would like to end the interview, exited the car, and returned to 

the residence. The officers then left the scene.

The officers differed in their estimates of the amount of time that the entire encounter 

lasted, with Bajus’ estimate at 15 minutes and Orick’s estimate at 30 to 45 minutes. Bajus 

described the officers’ interactions with the Defendant as being “calm” throughout the interview. 

While the interview was conducted on the porch and in the driveway, neither Orick nor Bajus 

stood between the Defendant and the entrance to the residence. Finally, according to the 

officers, the interactions with the Defendant’s mother and sister were more confrontational. 

III.

Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), “a suspect under custodial 

interrogation must be given notice of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.” 

United States v. Crossley, 224 F.3d 847, 861 (6th Cir. 2000). “Any incriminating statements 

obtained in violation of Miranda may not be admitted and used against the defendant at trial.” 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

Id. However, “Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a 

person's freedom as to render him ‘in custody.’” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 

(1977) (per curiam). 

Here, the Government does not dispute that the Defendant was never given Miranda

warnings either subsequent to or during his conversations with Bajus and Orick on July 16, 2010. 

The Defendant argues that he was in their custody during the encounter and the absence of the 

warnings should thus result in the suppression of his statements at trial. Accordingly, the Court 

must determine if the Defendant was in custody during any portion of his interactions with Bajus 

and Orick. Concluding that he was not, the Court denies the Defendant’s motion to suppress the 

statements made during the interview. 

“In determining whether an individual was in custody, a court must examine all of the 

circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there 

[was] a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal 

arrest.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) (per curiam) (citations and quotations 

omitted). The inquiry must focus on the “objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the 

subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” 

Id. at 323. “The question in the end is not whether the individual felt pressure to speak to the 

officers but whether she was forced to stay with them.” United States v. Panak, 552 F.3d 462, 

471 (6th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). 

The Sixth Circuit has identified several factors relevant to the “custody” inquiry, 

including: 1) “whether a reasonable person in the suspect's situation would have believed that 

she was free to terminate the interrogation and leave;” 2) “the purpose of the questioning;” 3) 

“whether the place of the questioning was hostile or coercive;” 3) “the length of the 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

questioning;” (4) “whether the suspect was informed at the time that the questioning was 

voluntary or that the suspect was free to leave or to request the officers to do so;” 5) “whether the 

suspect possessed unrestrained freedom of movement during questioning;” and 6) “whether the 

suspect initiated contact with the police or voluntarily admitted the officers to the residence and 

acquiesced to their requests to answer some questions.” Crossley, 224 F.3d at 861. 

The officers arrived at the residence in an unmarked car, and wore civilian clothing. The 

entire encounter lasted no more than 45 minutes. While the officers conceded that one purpose 

of their interview with the Defendant was to obtain potentially incriminating evidence against 

him, an examination of the other applicable factors reveals that the officers never restrained the 

Defendant’s freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest during the 

encounter. In other words, no reasonable person in the Defendant’s position would have 

believed that he or she was in custody or under arrest during the encounter. 

As to the whether the place of questioning was hostile or coercive, the conversations 

occurred on the porch and in the driveway of the Defendant’s residence in broad daylight. While 

the conclusion of the interview occurred in the officers’ car, the record is undisputed that the 

Defendant himself requested that the interview be moved to that location, presumably to shield 

the discussions from his sister and/or mother’s presence. Bajus and Orick described the overall 

tone of their interactions with the Defendant as calm. These facts, taken together, are indicative 

of an environment that was not hostile or coercive. 

The testimony also indicates that the Defendant possessed unrestrained freedom of 

movement during the entire encounter. While the officers were armed, their weapons were not 

visible. They did not use force, or threaten to use force against the Defendant. The Defendant 

was not placed under arrest. The officers never restrained the Defendant with handcuffs or 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

shackles. Prior to the interview moving into the car, the officers did not position themselves 

between the Defendant and the door to the residence. Further, it was the Defendant who 

requested that the interview be moved into the officers’ car, a request with which the officers 

complied. This fact indicates that the Defendant was able to exercise control over the 

interaction. At the point in time at which the Defendant decided to end the interview, he simply 

exited the car, and walked back into the residence with no interference by the officers. 

 Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the record is undisputed that the Defendant 

voluntarily agreed to speak to the officers even after being informed by Bajus that he was free to 

terminate the interaction at any time he wished. The Defendant proceeded to speak with the 

officers, and then exercised his right to terminate the encounter upon being advised by his uncle 

that cooperating with them might not be in his best interest. The officers respected the 

Defendant’s decision to end the interview, and made no attempt to force the Defendant to 

continuing speaking with them. 

The circumstances identified above lead the Court to conclude that the Defendant was not 

in police custody during his conversations with Bajus and Orick on July 16, 2010. Accordingly, 

the officers were not required to provide Miranda warnings, and the statements made by the 

Defendant during the interview are not excludable on the grounds that they failed to do so. 

IV.

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Scott A. Reynold’s Motion to Suppress Statements 

(Dkt. 16) is DENIED. 

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case: 2:12-cr-00240-PCE-EPD Doc #: 47 Filed: 05/20/13 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>