2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-25-2005 

# U SA v . B ronson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3297

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B r on s on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 784. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/784NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 04- 3297

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J O H N I. B R O N S O N , J R ., Appel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00087) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J o yF . C o n ti

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y12, 2005 B e f o re : A L IT O , B E C K E R , a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: J ul y25, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge. J ohn I . B r ons on, J r . , appea l s fr om a j udgm enti n a cr i m i nal cas e ent er ed pur s uant2

t o a condi t i onal pl ea of

gui l t yt o di s t r i but i on of O xy cont i n. H e appe al s hi s convi ct i on bas ed on a s uppr es s i on cl ai m , and hi s 151 m ont h pr i s on s ent ence bas ed on U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . — , 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (2 0 0 5 ). B e c a u se th e p a rties a re f u llyf a m ili a r w ith t he bac kgr ound fac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t or yw e nee d nots ett hem forth, and l i m i tour d iscu ssion to o u r ra tio d e c id e n d i. W e f i n d n o me r i tt o Br o n s o n ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n c l a i m, hen ce w e w i l l affirm t he co nv i ct i on . H ow ever, i n acco rdance w i t h the C ou rt ’s B ooker pr ot ocol s , w e w i l l r emand forr es ent enci ng. O n th e su p p re ss io n iss u e , B ro n so n m a k e s tw o c lo se lyre late d a rg u m e n ts: th a t h is st at em ents t o the poli ce w ere i nv olunt ary , and t hat hi s Mi r anda w a i v e rw a s i n v o l u n t a r y. B r ons on ar gues t hathi s act i ons w er e i nvol unt arybeca us e he w as drunk, and bec aus e the p o lice c o e rc e d c o o p e ra tio n o u t o f h im b yp ro m isin g to let h im se e h is f if tee n -y e a r-o ld daught er , w ho had r ece nt l ybeen r etur ned t o hi s cus t ody , i f he ga ve them w hatt hey
w ant ed. B ot h of thes e ar gum ent s ar e, how ever , di s pat ched byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s car eful and compr ehens i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that“def endantexpr es s ed conce r n abouthi s daught er ; defe ndantas ked thathe be a l l ow ed t o cal l her , and def endant
w as al l ow ed t o cal l hi s daught eron hi s cel l phone. ” B r ons on’ s cel l - phone r ecor ds , as w el l as t he t es t i m onyof s ever al w i t nes s es , s uppor tt hi s concl us i on. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge fur t herfound that“i ti s cl eart hatt he tr ooper s di d notengage i n anydece i t , coer ci on, i nt i m i dat i on t act i cs orat t empt s t o i m pr oper l yi nfl uence defe ndantbym aki ng pr om i s es3

w ith re g a rd s to h is d a u g h te r.” T h e s e f in d in g s a ll h a v e a m p le s u p p o rt in th e re c o rd . Si m i l ar l y , as t o B r ons on’ s cl ai m s of i nt oxi cat i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound that B r ons on’ s ow n expert , D r . R al ph T ar t er , t es t i fi ed thatB r ons on w oul d have ha d a bl ood al cohol conce nt r at i on ( B A C ) of . 069% att he t i m e of hi s arr es t , bel ow t he l evel of l egal intox icati o n . A t th e ti m e h e w rote o u t his st atem en ts, B ron so n ’s B A C w as z ero . D r. T a rte r a lso tes tifie d th a t “p e o p le w h o re g u lar lya b u se a lco h o l,” a s B ro n so n c o n c e d e d ly di d, “ca n oft en func t i on atbl ood al cohol conce ntr at i on l evel s of . 069 and hi gher . ” The D i s t r i ctC our tal s o found thatB r ons on exhi bi t ed no s i gns of i nt oxi cat i on t o anyof the t roopers. T here w as ext ensi ve ev i den ce fo r al l of these fi nd i ng s. G i ven thes e fi ndi ngs , as w el l as t he det ai l ed and thor ough w ai ver s t hatB r ons on s i gned, and the ca r eful pr ocedur es fol l ow ed byt he pol i ce, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der deny i ng t he mot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence w i l l be af fi r m ed. H avi ng det erm i ned thatt he sent encing i ssues appell ant r ai ses ar e bestdeterm i ned byt he D i stri ctC ou rti n the fi rs t in sta n c e , w e w ill v a c a te th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith B ooker . S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( opi ni on s urdeni al of reh ea ri n g en b an c).