THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

VICTOR BLANCO, 

Defendant. 

3:22-CR-318 

(JUDGE MARIANI) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 13, 2022, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant Victor Blanco for 

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (Count I) as a result 

of an altercation on or about August 24, 2022 wherein Defendant Blanco and co-Defendant 

Isaac Carreno allegedly "knowingly and intentionally assault[ed] an individual with a 

dangerous weapon ... with intent to do bodily harm, without just cause or excuse" while 

incarcerated at USP-Canaan. (Doc. 1 ). 

On March 17, 2023, Defendant Blanco filed a Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 

40) requesting that the Court suppress statements made by Blanco on two separate 

occasions to Lieutenant Mark Turner, arguing that Defendant was not advised of his 

Miranda rights prior to either conversation with Lieutenant Turner. 

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's suppression motion on June 

16, 2023. At the hearing, the Government presented the testimony of Lieutenant Turner. 

Defendant did not present any witness testimony. Following the evidentiary hearing, 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 15
counsel for both parties presented oral argument in support of their respective positions. 

The parties having fully briefed and argued the issues and the Court having 

conducted an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, Defendant's motion to suppress is 

now ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will grant in part and 

deny in part the Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 40). 

II. BACKGROUND 

The testimony of Mark Turner at the evidentiary hearing, in conjunction with the 

exhibits admitted at the hearing, provide the basis for the relevant factual background of 

Defendant's motion. 

Mark Turner began working for the Bureau of Prisons in 2012 and is currently a 

Special Investigative Agent ("SIA") at FCI-Otisville in New York. (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr. , 

June 16, 2023, at 5). Prior to working at FCI-Otisville, Turner worked at USP-Canaan from 

2012 to early-2023, first as a correctional officer, then as a Special Investigative Services 

Technician, and finally as a Special Investigative Services Lieutenant ("SIS Lieutenant") 

during his final two and a half years at USP-Canaan. (Id. at 6). As an SIS Lieutenant, 

Turner assisted the SIA "in overseeing the SIS Office, but [his] main duties were to 

complete weekly and monthly reports for the region and to complete all inmate 

investigations." (Id. at 7). 

At approximately 8:35 a.m. on August 24, 2022, Turner was on duty when he 

became aware of an assault allegedly involving inmates Blanco, Carreno, and Francisco 

2 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 15
Rivera-Suazo. (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 9-10, 11). Inmates Carreno and 

Blanco were brought to the "Lieutenant's Office" and Turner conducted a post-incident 

preliminary interview with Blanco. (Id. at 11-12).1 During the interview, Blanco was in hand 

restraints and admitted that he was affiliated with the Surenos (id. at 13, 14), which Turner 

described as a "Hispanic gang that are extremely loyal to the Mexican Mafia" and are known 

as "the soldiers for the Mexican Mafia" (id. at 25). 2 

On September 2, 2022, Turner met with Blanco in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") 

Lieutenant's Office to discuss the BOP's Gang Disassociation Program. (Test. of Turner, 

Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 25). The purpose of this program "is for inmates to be housed in 

a facility, if they complete the program, with people that are viewed as ex-gang members or 

inactive gang members [and] for them ... to not participate in gang activity anymore and be 

housed in a different facility with other inmates that have completed the program." (Id. at 

17). Turner described the initial process he follows to inform an inmate about the Gang 

Disassociation Program as follows: 

1 A post-incident preliminary interview takes place after an incident occurs within the prison. At that 

time, Turner and one or more individuals in his office "go in and interview the individuals that are involved 

and attempt to determine if there's still a bigger issue out there in general population, stemming from the 

incident that just occurred" and to gain information about the incident. (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 

2023, at 8; see also, id. at 13-14). 

2 Because the Government concedes that Blanco was subject to a custodial interrogation on 

August 24, 2022 (see Doc. 45, at 14, 16-17) and withdrew its objection at the hearing to Defendant's 

motion to suppress Bianco's August 24 statement that he was affiliated with the Surenos (see Hr'g Tr., 

June 16, 2023, at 56), the Court has only briefly summarized herein the testimony provided by Turner as to 

this interrogation. 

3 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 15
So when we attempt to transfer an inmate out of the facility, we have to afford 

them the opportunity to participate in the Disassociation Program. When we 

educate and when we inform an inmate of the Disassociation Program, he can 

refuse right then and there, and I have a refusal form with me, or he can consent 

to participate in that program, which I have a Consent Form. 

If he refuses, it ends right there. If he consents or consents to participate in it, 

we would provide him further documentation for him to fill out, and then all of 

that documentation would be sent to the National Gang Unit for review to 

determine if he's eligible and provided enough information or not eligible 

because he didn't provide enough credible information. 

(Id. at 16-17). 

According to Turner, he believed that Blanco was associated with a prison gang 

"[b]ased on his self-admission, ... tattoos that he has, .. . group photos and other inmates 

that he associated with on a daily basis." (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 24). 

When asked what "self-admission" meant, Turner explained that "[w]hen inmates come into 

a facility, they're screened by the Special Investigative Service staff, and we always ask 

who you're affiliated with" and that "at another facility, [Blanco] admitted to being affiliated 

with the Surenos." (Id.). On September 2, 2022, Turner admitted that he knew there was 

suspicion that the Surenos gang had been involved in the assault of Rivera-Suazo on 

August 24, 2022 and that he believed that Blanco, Carreno and Rivera-Suazo were all 

members of the Surenos. (Id. at 48). 

Turner explained that the purpose of his meeting with Blanco in the SHU 

Lieutenant's Office on September 2, 2022 was "to afford [Blanco] the opportunity to 

disassociate himself from the gang, because he would be put in for transfer, and for the 

4 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 4 of 15
administrative transfer process, I have to afford him that opportunity." (Test. of Turner, Hr'g 

Tr., June 16, 2023, at 26). Another SIS Lieutenant was also present during this meeting. 

(Id. at 26, 42-43). Neither officer was armed. (Id. at 26). Blanco was secured in hand 

restraints, which was required by SHU policy and was the standard way for inmates to be 

moved throughout the SHU facility. (Id. at 26, 51 ). The Lieutenant's Office is "a normal 

office-sized room" with a desk, chairs, filing cabinet, shelves, and a door. (Id. at 26). The 

room does not have any bars or windows except for a window in the door. (Id. at 26, 44). 

During the meeting, Turner had both a Consent Form and Debrief Refusal Form and 

"explained to [Blanco] that [Turner] was there to afford him the opportunity to disassociate 

himself from the gang." (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 27). In response to 

Turner's explanation, Blanco allegedly said "'I'm a Sureno. I don't sign shit."' (Id. at 27). 

After Blanco made this statement, "[t]he interview immediately ended" and Blanco was 

escorted back to his cell. (Id. at 28). Turner did not inform Blanco that he had the right to 

remain silent or to end the interview at any time because he "wasn't there to interview him, 

[and] wasn't there to gain any information from [Blanco] or ask him any questions. [Turner] 

was there to inform [Blanco] on the disassociation process and advise him he has an 

opportunity to disassociate himself or to refuse, but .. . was not there to ask [Blanco] any 

questions." (Id. at 28-29; see a/so, id. at 46). 

If an inmate declines to join the program, Turner requests that the inmate sign a 

"Debrief Refusal" acknowledging "that they are refusing to participate in the debrief 

5 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 5 of 15
process." (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 21). Here, Turner wrote on the top of 

the Debrief Refusal form the date ("9-2-2022"), inmate name ("Blanco, Victor"), and 

identified Blanco as a Sureno Member. (See Hr'g Ex. G-3; Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 

16, 2023, at 28). Turner signed the form and, because Blanco refused to sign the Debrief 

Refusal form, Turner wrote "Refused" on the Inmate Signature line. (Id.). Turner testified 

that during the course of initial debriefing interviews, hundreds of inmates have refused to 

join the Disassociation Program and when so refusing, did not indicate the name of the 

gang they were allegedly associated with. (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 52). 

Ill. ANALYSIS 

Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 40) moves for the suppression of 

Bianco's alleged statements made on August 24, 2022, and September 2, 2022, both 

admitting his affiliation with the Sureno gang. Because the Government has withdrawn its 

objection to Defendant's motion to suppress the statement made to Lieutenant Turner on 

August 24, 2022 in the Lieutenant's Office (see Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 56; Doc. 45, at 

14, 16-17), the Court will grant Defendant's motion as to the August 24, 2022 statement. 

The issue presently before the Court is thus whether Blanco was subject to custodial 

interrogation without being informed of his Miranda rights during his conversation with 

Turner on September 2, 2022. 

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person 

"shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. CONST. 

6 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 6 of 15
AMEND. V. "[T]he privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals not only from legal 

compulsion to testify in a criminal courtroom but also from 'informal compulsion exerted by 

law-enforcement officers during in-custody questioning."' Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 

582, 589 (1990) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,461 (1966)). The Government 

"may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial 

interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards 

effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. 

Commonly known as the "Miranda warnings," a defendant in police custody 

must be warned prior to any questioning 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 the 

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. 

Id. at 479. 

"No Miranda warning is required absent a 'custodial interrogation."' United States v. 

Savage, 677 F. Supp. 2d 756, 763 (E.D. Pa. 2009); see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. 

"Because the presence of both a custodial setting and official interrogation is required to 

trigger the Miranda right-to-counsel prophylactic, absent one or the other, Miranda is not 

implicated." Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1244 (3d Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original). 

"[T]he determination of whether statements are the product of such 'custodial interrogation' 

must be made on a case-by-case basis." United States v. Leese, 176 F.3d 740, 743 (3d 

Cir. 1999) ( citations omitted). 

7 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 7 of 15
In determining whether an individual is in custody, "the initial step is to ascertain 

whether, in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation, a reasonable person 

[would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." 

Howes v. Fields , 565 U.S. 499, 509 (2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

However, the freedom of movement inquiry "is simply the first step in the analysis, not the 

last." Id. "Not all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of 

Miranda." Instead, courts must also ask "the additional question whether the relevant 

environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house 

questioning at issue in Miranda." Id. 

In the context of questioning an inmate, the Supreme Court has declined to adopt a 

bright line rule that imprisonment alone is sufficient to constitute custody within the meaning 

of Miranda. Howes, 565 U.S. at 511. Rather, "the determination of custody should focus on 

all of the features of the interrogation," including "the language that is used in summoning 

the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted." Id. at 

514 (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,665 (2004)); accord Bruce v. United 

States, 439 F.Supp.2d 364, 371 (M.D. Pa. 2006) ("Because restraint on freedom is the 

status quo of a prisoner, the courts examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding 

the interrogation to ascertain whether the defendant should be deemed 'in custody' for 

purposes of Miranda."). 

8 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 8 of 15
Here, the Government concedes that Blanco was in custody on September 2, 2022 

for purposes of the Miranda inquiry. (Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 55, 56). 3 Therefore, at 

issue is only whether the September 2 meeting between Turner and Blanco was an "official 

interrogation." 

As conceptualized under Miranda, an "interrogation" must "reflect a measure of 

compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself." Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 

U.S. 291, 300 (1980). "[T]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express 

questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those 

normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely 

to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." Id. at 301. In determining whether an 

"interrogation" occurred, a Court should look to the "perceptions of the suspect, rather than 

the intent of the police" so as to ensure that a suspect in custody is provided "an added 

measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of 

the underlying intent of the police." Id. Nonetheless, "since the police surely cannot be held 

accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of 

interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they 

should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." Id. at 301-

3 The Government has conceded that Defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda and 

therefore this prong of the analysis is not at issue before this Court. However, were the Government's 

position otherwise, this Court would have recognized the existence of an issue deserving of further 

examination. 

9 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 9 of 15
302 (emphasis in original). Thus, in determining whether particular police conduct is an 

"interrogation", a Court must remember the purpose behind Miranda and its progeny: 

"preventing government officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract 

confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment." Arizona v. Mauro, 

481 U.S. 520, 529 (1987); see a/so, United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131,147 (3d Cir. 

2006) ("The premise of Miranda is that a suspect speaking with those whom he knows to be 

law enforcement officers 'will feel compelled to speak by the fear of reprisal for remaining 

silent or in the hope of more lenient treatment should he confess."')(quoting Illinois v. 

Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 296-297 (1990)). 

In this case, there is no testimony or other evidence to suggest that Turner engaged 

in an official interrogation or its functional equivalent on September 2, 2022 when speaking 

with Blanco. 

The essentially one-sided conversation between Turner and Blanco did not include 

any express questioning of Blanco as to his affiliation with the Surenos. As Turner testified, 

"[he] wasn't there to gain any information from [Blanco] or ask him any questions [and 

instead] was there to inform him on the disassociation process and advise him he has an 

opportunity to disassociate himself or to refuse . . .. " (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 

2023, at 29; see a/so, id. at 46). Although Turner clearly presumed that Blanco was a 

member of the Sureno gang, 4 there is no testimony or other evidence to contradict Turner's 

4 Turner testified that he was aware of Bianco's affiliation with the Sureno gang when be met with 

10 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 10 of 15
statement of his intent or to indicate that Turner asked any questions to Blanco about his 

gang affiliation. Nor is there evidence that Blanco perceived Turner's statements as 

compelling an admission that he was a member of the Surenos. Instead, the evidence 

presented only supports a finding that Turner informed Blanco about the Gang 

Disassociation Program, and when Blanco declined to participate in the program, he 

requested that Blanco sign a Debrief Refusal Form. Bianco's statement that "I'm a Sureno. 

I don't sign shit" was not in response to questioning by Turner as to any illegal or illicit 

behavior, but rather a response to Turner's basic request that Blanco sign the form . 

Further, the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that Turner's conduct or 

statements made on September 2 about the Gang Disassociation Program constituted a 

"coercive police practice" or that Blanco perceived it as such. Turner's statements to Blanco 

provided him with information about the Gang Disassociation Program. There is no 

evidence that Turner engaged in conduct, asked Defendant questions, or made statements 

that were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Blanco, including any 

direct or indirect reference to the assault of Rivera-Suazo or other criminal activity related to 

the Sureno gang. Rather, Turner's testimony supports a determination that the only 

purpose of his meeting with Blanco was to inform him of the Disassociation Program and to 

offer him the opportunity to join this program. Although Blanco was in handcuffs, Turner 

Blanco on September 2 based on Bianco's self-admission at another facility that he was affiliated with the 

Surenos as well as from Bianco's tattoos, "group photos and other inmates that he associated with on a 

daily basis." (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, at 24). 

11 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 11 of 15
and the other officer present were not armed and the meeting took place in a "normal officesized room" without bars. The meeting was short, designed to be informational only, and 

Turner did not engage in a "lengthy harangue" of Blanco or make "particularly 'evocative"' 

comments, see Innis, 446 U.S. at 303. Nor is there evidence that Blanco, an inmate since 

2016 with a "extensive criminal history" since 2001 (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 2023, 

at 16), had an "unusual susceptibility" to a particular form of persuasion which would have 

led Turner to know that his words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating 

response from Blanco or that Blanco was "unusually disoriented or upset" at the time of the 

meeting. See Innis, 446 U.S. at 302 n.8, 303.

5 

In addition, in looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that 

Bianco's statement on September 2, 2022 was voluntary. Under Miranda, "[v]olunteered 

statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment. . .. " Miranda, 384 U.S. at 

478. A statement is involuntary when the defendant's "will was overborne in such a way as 

to render his confession the product of coercion." Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 288 

(1991). In determining whether a statement is voluntary, courts must consider "the totality 

of all the surrounding circumstances - both the characteristics of the accused and the 

details of the interrogation." Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000) (quoting 

5 As Turner testified, during the course of initial debriefing interviews that he had conducted, 

hundreds of inmates have refused to join the Disassociation Program and when so refusing, did not 

indicate the name of the gang they were allegedly associated with. (Test. of Turner, Hr'g Tr., June 16, 

2023, at 52). 

12 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 12 of 15
Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218,226 (1973)). "These surrounding circumstances 

include 'not only the crucial element of police coercion,' but may also include 'the length of 

the interrogation, its location, its continuity, the defendant's maturity, education, physical 

condition, and mental health."' Lam v. Kelchner, 304 F.3d 256, 264 (3d Cir. 2002) (first 

quoting Colorado v. Connelly, 4 79 U.S. 157, 167 ( 1986), then quoting Withrow v. Williams , 

507 U.S. 680, 693 (1993)). "A suspect's background and experience, including prior 

dealings with the criminal justice system, should be taken into account in the voluntariness 

inquiry." United States v. Jacobs, 431 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Oregon v. 

Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1046 (1983)). "Further, there must be some causal connection 

between the police conduct and the confession." Id. (citing Connelly, 479 U.S. at 164). 

"The burden is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a 

challenged statement was voluntary." Id. at 108-09 (citing Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 

489 (1972)). 

Upon examination of the circumstances of the September 2 conversation, it is 

evident that Bianco's statement that "I'm a Sureno. I don't sign shit", made following 

Turner's explanation about the Gang Disassociation Program and upon Turner's request 

that he sign the Debrief Refusal Form, was made voluntarily. Blanco was imprisoned at the 

time of the underlying events since 2016 and had an "extensive criminal history" since 2001 . 

Turner's testimony and the record evidence demonstrates that Blanco also had experience 

speaking with prison officials both within and outside of investigatory settings. (See e.g., 

13 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 13 of 15
Hr'g Ex. G-4(A)-(D), 5). There is nothing in the record that would call into question Bianco's 

maturity, education, mental or physical health at the time of the interview. Although the 

Government concedes that the circumstances of the conversation in the Lieutenant's Office 

were sufficient for a finding of that Blanco was in custody, they are not so coercive as to 

support a finding that Bianco's will was overborne during the interview. As previously 

explained, while Blanco was in hand restraints, the two officers were not armed, the 

conversation with Turner was brief and took place in a regular office, and there was no 

indication that Turner or the other officer used physical force, threatened Blanco in any 

manner, or asked any questions which would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating 

response from Blanco. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that 

Bianco's statement was voluntary. 

For the foregoing reasons, and upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits 

presented at the evidentiary hearing and the parties' briefs and oral argument, the Court will 

grant Defendant's motion to suppress Defendant's statement made on August 24, 2022, but 

will deny the motion to suppress Bianco's statement made on September 2, 2022 where 

Blanco was not subject to a "custodial interrogation" and Turner was thus not required to 

provide Blanco with any Miranda warnings on that day. 

14 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 14 of 15
IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant Bianco's Motion to Suppress Statements 

(Doc. 40) will be granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein. A separate Order 

follows. 

RoberfB. Mar'ani 

United States District Judge 

15 

Case 3:22-cr-00318-RDM Document 54 Filed 07/10/23 Page 15 of 15