## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11
- 1205 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AKE R I CH A RDS ON, III, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:09- cr-00149

—Jo n E . D eG uil io, Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 8, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . On N ove m ber12 , 20 09, J ake Ri chardso n I I Iw as charg ed w i th poss ess i on with i nt en t to di st r ibut e m o r e th anfi ve g r ams o fco ca i ne b as e in v iola tio n of 21 U .S.C . § 84 1(a )(1) . B efo re tria l, Ri ch ar dso n mov ed to s up p re ss the na r co ti cs a nd curr ency that had been found on hi s per son and al lpost
ar re st sta tem ents that he had m ade to l aw enf or cem en t offici als. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d Rich ard son ’s2 N o. 11
- 1205

m oti on in part, but denie d i t a s t o som e o fhi s s tat em ents an d a s to the phy si ca le vi den ce . A j ur y ul ti m at ely f ound Ri c h a r d s o n g u i l t y . He n o w a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n, ar guing tha t the di str i ct c ourtsho u ld have s up press ed the physi calev i dence and al lo fhi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents.

I. B ACK GR OUN D La Po r t e Co un t y De pu t y Da l l a s S mythe s t o pp e d R i c ha r dson f or d r iv in g 80 m il es p er hou r i n a 55 m il es-p erhou r zone. Bec au se R ichard son and h is pa ssen ger w ere beh aving od d ly, De p ut y Sm yth e ha d his can ine p artn er, M ar ko, co nd uct a fre e- ai r sea rc h ofthe vehi cl e. M ar ko al er t e d o n b o th s i d e s o fth e v e h i c l e , s o D e p u t y S m y th e a s k e d Ri c ha r ds o n f o r c o ns e nt t o s e a r c h the c a r, wh i ch Richardson g ra nted. Bef or e s ear chi ng the car, Deputy Sm yth e p erform ed a p rotective p at-d ow n of Rich ard son ’s perso n. Duri ng the pat- dow n, Deputy Sm ythe fel t a ha r d o bj ec t i n Ri ch ar dso n’ s l eft pan ts po ck et . W he n he re m ove d the obj ect, he s aw thati t was a bund l e o f pape rc ur r en cy . Co nt i nui ngthe pa t- do wn, De puty S m y th e fe l ta h a r d o bj e c ti n R i c h a r d s o n ’ s r i g h tp a n t s p o c k e t, a nd Ri ch ar dso n i m m edi at ely t r i ed to pul law ayfr o m the o ffi ce r . W he n De p uty S m y th e r emov ed th e o bj ec t, he saw i t was a p ac ket co ntai ni ng an off

- w hi te, r ocky s ubsta nce. Aft erDe puty S m y th e ha d l o o k ed atthe o bj ec t, he ask ed Ri chardso n w hat i t was, and Ri chardso n re sponded , “You k n ow wh at i t i s. ” Deputy S m ythe al so ask ed w hy Ric hardson’ s shi rt sm el l ed l ike m ar ij uana, and R ich ardson re sponded thathe ha d been withN o. 11
- 1205 3 peo pl e who wer e smok i ngmar ij ua na . De puty Sm y th e ar re ste d a nd handcuffed Ri chardso n w i thout further questi on. W hile bei ng handcuffed, Ri chardso n sai d that he cou l d g etmor e co ca i ne a nd mar ij ua na a nd tha t he “w ou ld d o a n y t h i n g to m ak e t h is go aw ay .” H e s aid he co uld g et signi fi cant am ounts ofco cai ne, and as pr o o fhe r epo r te d hi s i nv o l ve m en t in a n abo r te d c o ca i ne tr an sa ct i on i n Mer r i l l vi l l e, Indi an a. De puty S m y th e ask ed Ri chardson if he w anted to speakwith s om eone . Ric hardson sai d he did, so Dep uty Sm ythe cal l ed Se rg eant Tim othyS hor tt. W h ile w ait in g for Ser ge an t Sh or tt, R ich ar d so n sa t in th e b ac k of a sq u ad ca r, w ith D ep u ty L ow el l B os w ell st a nd i ng o utsi de. Ri chardso n re peatedl y a ske d D e p u t y B o s we l lt o o p e n th e do o ra n d t a l kt o h i m. W he n De puty B oswe l le nt er ed th e ca rt o e sc ape the col d, R ich ar dson to l d him thathe c oul d get a l ot of coca ine from a m alli n M erril lvi ll e w he r e peo p le w ere com i ng with a U-H aul tr uck. A fterhi s ar ri val, Se rg eant Shor tt approached Ri chardso n i n the squad car and aske d Richar ds on how he was d oing. R ichard son resp ond ed , “ A re you th e guy w e’re w ai ting o n?” S er gea nt S hor tt confi rm ed that he was. Ri ch ar dso n the n t o l d him h e cou l d b uy a l ar g e amoun t ofco cai ne fro m so m eone in M ichi gan Ci ty, Ind i ana, or fr om a coca i ne- fi l l ed U

- H aul tr uck in M er ri l l vi l l e. Ri ch ar dso n a l so t o l d S er g ea ntS ho r tthe was pl anni ng to b uy s o m e co ca i ne ne xtS unda y, a nd he o ffered t o b uy it for the p oli ce. A fter Richa rd son volun teered this i nform at i on, S er g ea ntS ho r tta sk ed Ri ch ar dso n whe r e he4 N o. 11
- 1205 ha d g o t t e n the c o c a i ne b a s e f o un d in hi s p o c k e t . R i c ha r dson tol d him he ha d got ten i t in So uth Bend , Indi ana. A f ter speak i ng wi th S e r g e a ntS hor tt, Ri chardso n was t ak ent o La Po r te Co unty J ai lf o rb o o k i ng . Dur i ng an i nventory s ear ch, o ffi cer s found a sm al lba g o f coca i ne bas e in Ric hardson’ s sock
. Fro m arr estto bo oking, Ric hardson re cei ved no M i r anda warni ngs. Ri ch ar dso n was c ha r g ed wi thpo ss essi o n wi thi nt en t to dist ribute m or e than fi ve gr am s o fco cai ne bas e. Befo re tr i al, he m ove d to supp re ss the tw o packet s o f coca i ne bas e, the bund l e o fcurr ency, and hi s pos tarrest stat em en ts. T he d istri ct cou rt gra nt ed Rich ard son ’s m oti on a s t o the s tat em ents

— “Y ou k n ow w hat i t i s”; “A re yo u the guy we’ re wait i ng o n?”; and “South Be nd ”

— he had m ade i n dir ect re sponse to Dep uty Sm ythe’ s a nd S er gea nt S hor tt’ s questi ons, but denie d th e m oti on a s t o eve ry thi ng el se. A j ury ult i m ate ly f ound Richar dson gui l ty. H e was s en te nced to 236 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, bas ed i n parto n hi s 2 4 pri or convi cti ons, hi s ca re ero ffender sta tus, and the f act that he had i nter ac ted with the c ri m i nalj usti ce s yst em eve ryye aro fhi s l i fe fro m a ge 1 2 t o age 43

— hi s a ge at sente nci ng.
II. A NA LYSIS Ric hardson see ks a new tr i al, cl ai m in g the di str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve su ppr es se d a l lphy si ca le vi den ce a nd allof his state m en ts. W he n review ing the district cou rt’s denia l of a m oti on to supp re ss evi dence, w e revi ew fac tu alfi nd i ngs forcl earer ro r and l ega lco ncl usi ons deN o. 11
- 1205 5
novo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vas quez , 635 F. 3d 889, 89 4 ( 7th C ir. 2011).
A
. Phy si cal Evidence Ri c ha r ds o n c l a i ms the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y n o ts up press i ng al lp h ysic alev i dence

— the b und l e o fcurr ency, th e c oc ain e b as e in h i s p oc ke t, an d th e c oc ain e b as e in his s ock

— sei zed on the day ofhi s a rr est . The di str i ct cour t r ule d that the coca in e base i n hi s s ockwas dis

cove re d du rin g a l aw ful i nventory s ear ch and that l aw enf or cem ent o ffi ci al s inevi tabl y would have di sco ver ed th e c u rre n c y in th e s am e s ea rc h
. SeeU nite d Sta te s v. C artwright, 6 30 F
. 3d 61 0, 6 13
- 14 ( 7th Ci r . 2 010)
. Be ca us e th e coca ine base i n R ichard son ’s pock et gave th e officers p robab le cause f or Rich ard son ’s arrest, w hich i n tu rn l ed t o the i nv e nt o r y s e a r c h, the g o v e r nme nta nd R i c ha r ds o n c o r r e c t l y f o c us the i r a r g ume nts o n w hether D ep u ty Sm yt h e la w fu lly in sp ec te d th e c oc ain e b as e in Ri ch ar dso n’ s po ck etdur i ngthe pr o te ct i ve pa t- do wn. Ri ch ar dso n do es no t di spu te tha t Deputy S m y th e law fu lly i nitiated a stop and pa t-do w n of Rich ard son ’s p er so n . SeeTerry v. O hio , 3 92 U. S
. 1 ( 19 68). R athe r, he cl ai m s Deputy Sm ythe’ s pat- dow n beca m e a n i m perm i ssibl e explo ra tory sea rch w hen Dep uty Sm yt h e rem ove d the c oca i ne bas e fro m Ri chardso n’s r i ght pan ts pocke t and i nspected i t. Ri chardso n’s ar gum ent m i sappli es M i n n e s o t a v . Di c k e rs on , 5 08 U
. S. 36 6 ( 1993 )
. Ri chardso n f o cus es o n D i cke rs on ’ s pro nou ncem ent that a n offi cer c an not go beyo nd a prot ecti ve pat- dow n to m ani pu l ate ano bj ect co nc ea l ed i n a po ck etunl es s “the i nc r i m i na ting6 N o. 11
- 1205 chara ctero fthe obj ect [ i s] im m edi ate l y a pp ar ent. ” 5 08 U. S
. a t 379. B uttha t r es tr i ct i o n do es no t apply unt i lthe o ffi ce rc o nc l ude s th atthe obj ect a t i ss ue i s no t a wea po n. D i cke rs on , 508 U .S. at 3 78 ; s e eU ni ted Sta te s v. M uhamm ad, 604 F. 3d 1022 , 1026
- 27 ( 8th Cir
. 2010 ) ( sei zure and in spection of obj ect n ot un law ful un d er D i cke rs on bec ause officer w as u nc ertain w he th er obj ect w as a w eap on). D ep u ty Sm ythe tes ti fi ed that, afterthe prot ecti ve patdow n, h e “ w asn’ t s ure w hat [ the obj ect] was. I t was j ust an u n fam iliar lu m p , [a] h a rd lum p .” B as ed on th is t es tim ony, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound D eputy S m yt h e was unsure whether the hard o bj ect i n Ri chardso n’s pocke t w as a w eapon. That fi nd i ng w as not cl ea rly err oneo us. Se eU nited St at e s v. Swann , 149 F.3d 271 , 275 (4th C ir. 1998 ) ( defe rr i ng t o d i str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t the o ffi cer had not dete rm i ned w h ether the o bj ect w as a weapon w hen te sti m ony w as “enti rely am bi guous” as to w hether th e officer “sus p ecte d or d id n ot su sp ect a w eap on” ). Ric hardson co uld have

—but di d not

— ar gue that Deputy S m y th e co ul d no t ha ve r ea so nabl y s us p ec te d the ob j ec t in R ich ar d s o n ’ s p oc ke t w as a w ea p on . See U nited S t at e s v . Brown , 18 8 F
. 3d 860, 86 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99)
. The te st for rea so n ab le s u sp icio n is an ob j ec tiv e o n e. Id. ; U nited Sta t e s v. Rob i ns on , 6 15 F
. 3d 80 4, 8 07
- 08 ( 7th Ci r . 2 010). ButRi ch ar dso n di spu te s o nl y whethe rDep ut y S m y th e ac t ual l y bel i eve d th e obj ect w as a weapon

— ani ss ue irre lev an t t o re as on ab le s u sp icio n, s e eBrown , 18 8 F .3d at 866

— and does no t di spute thata r ea sonab l e o ffi cer in D ep ut y Sm yth e’s p ositi on w ou ld ha ve b e e n “ w arra nted in the bel i efthathi s s afet y o r that ofo ther s was i n danger
. ” Terry, 39 2 U.S
. at27
.N o. 11
- 1205 7 Ev e n i fR i c h a r d s o n h a d a r g u e d th a tD e p u t y S m y th e co ul d no t ha ve ha d r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n, hi s argu m en t l i kel y would h av e f ai l ed. Court s, i ncl ud i ng o urs, have c on c lu d ed th at an offic er w h o e n c o u n te rs a sm all, h ar d ob j ec t d u rin g a p at -d ow n m ay h av e re as on ab le su sp icio n to be liev e t h e o bj ec t is a w ea p on . See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Ho lm es , 38 5 F
. 3d 786, 79 0- 91 (D
. C. Cir
. 20 04) (offic er co u ld rea so n ab ly su sp ec t s m all d igit a l s c ale in j ac ke t p oc ke t w as a w ea p on ); Br own , 18 8 F. 3d at 865- 66 ( offi cerco uld r eas onablysuspecthar d obj ect sm al l er than a ping- pong bal li n suspect’ s g ro i n ar ea w as a we a po n)
. In c l o s e c a s es , we h a v e t a k e n the s a me a pproa ch thata fi el d offi cerl i kel y t ake s duri ng a prot ecti ve pat- dow n: “B ett ersa fe than so rr y. ” S e eBrown , 18 8 F
. 3d at 866.
B
. Custodial State m ents The dis tr i ct c ourtsuppress ed al lst ate m ents Ric hardson m ad e in d ire c t re sp on se to offic er s’ q u es tio n s. Se eM i r anda v. Ar izona , 38 4 U.S
. 43 6 ( 1966 )
. Ri ch ar dso n a r g ue s the custo diali nter ro gat i on m ade al lo fhi s s ubsequent s tat em ents i nvol untaryand thus inadm i ssibl e. A l ternati vel y, he ar gues that h is c onver sat i on with Se rg eant Shor tt w as th e func ti o na le qui va l en t o fan inter r o g at i o n, thus r en d eri ng hi s s tat em ents to Se rg eant Shor tt i nadm i ssab le un d er M i r anda
. DeputyS m y th e’ s an d S er g ea ntS ho r tt ’ s que st i o ns m ayha ve b ee n M ira nda v i o l at i o ns , b uts uchv i o l at i o ns do n o tr e nd e ra l ll a ter st a t e men t s a ut o mat i c a l l y i na d-8 N o. 11
- 1205

m iss ible
. Se eO r egon v. Els t ad, 470 U
. S. 298, 3 1 8 (198 5); U nite d States v. A bdull a , 294 F.3d 830 , 835-37 (7th C ir. 20 02 )
. The t es t fo ra dm i tt i nga l at ers ta te m en t

— one not m ade i n re sponse to unw ar ned custod i ali nter ro gati on

— de pe nd s o n w heth e rthe p r i o rs t a t e men t s ma de i n r e s po ns e to M i r anda -viol ating interroga tion w ere nonethel ess vo l untary . I fso , an y l ate r vol untaryst ate
m en t is ad m iss ible ; i f n ot, an y la te r st at em en t is admi ss ibl e o nl y i fthere w as “ a su ffi ci en t br ea ki n the str eam o fev ents to i nsul ate the seco nd co n fes si on fro m the e ar l i erta i nt. ” Watson v. D eTell a , 12 2 F .3d 45 0, 45 4 (7th C ir. 1997) (qu otation m arks om itted ). The fi r st st ep i n o ur an aly si s, th en, is to d et er m i ne w h e t h er th e t h re e s ta te m en ts R ich ar d so n m ad e in re sponse to custo diali nter ro gat i on

— “Y ou kn ow w h at it i s”; “Are y ou the guywe’r e wai ti ng o n?” ; a nd “S outh Be nd ”

— w er e v olu n ta ry . A st at em en t is vo lu n t a ry if, “in l i g hto fthe t o ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s, [ i t] i s th e pr o ducto fa r at i o na li nt el l ect a nd fr ee wi l la nd no t th e re sul t o fphysi calabuse, psycho l ogi cali nti m i dati on, o r dec ept i ve i nt er r o g at i o n t ac ti cs tha t ha ve o ve r co m e th e de fe nd a nt ’ s fr e e wi l l
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i l l on , 15 0 F
. 3d 754, 75 7 (7th Cir
. 19 98)
. M or eov er, “co er ci ve pol i ce acti vi ty i s a nece ssa rypre dica te to the fi nd i ng tha t a c o nfe ssi on i s no t v ol untary . ” Id. ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d)
. T o s h o w c o e r c i v e p o l i c e a c t i v i t y, R i c h a r d s o n c l a i ms th ath e w as ne r vo us , ha ndcu ffed, a nd ( sa fely ) o n the si de ofthe hi ghw ay f or51 m i nutes. These ci rcum st an c es do n ot show coer ci ve pol i ce a cti vi ty suffi ci ent t o ov er c om e R ich ar d so n ’s w ill. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Mo n tg o m-N o. 11
- 1205 9 ery, 55 5 F
. 3d 623, 63 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( coe rci ve pol i ce acti vi ty i ncl ud es physi calpunishm ent, psycho l ogi c al i nti m i dati on, a n d som eti m es decei t)
. Rather, Ri chardso n describ es a f ai rl y o rdi naryl aw enf or cem ent- suspect i nter acti on. W e s tr ongl y doubt that thi s e ncounter f azed Ri chardso n, gi ven h is fre quent-fl yerst atus w i th the c ri m i nalj usti ce s yst em

— evi denced by hi s ca re er offender status, 24 pri orco nvi cti ons, and 31 yea rs o f re gu lar int er ac tio n w ith law en for c em en t. See U nited St at e s v. Swans on , 63 5 F
. 3d 995, 10 03 ( 7th Ci r . 20 11) ( co nsi der i ngde fen dan t’ s expe r i en ce i n v o l unt ar i ne ss i nq u iry ); U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 5 10 F.3d 70 2, 710 (7th Cir. 2007 ) (sam e). R ich ar d so n ’s o th er st at em en ts ar e th er efo re ad m iss ible as lon g a s t h ey w er e a lso vo lu n ta ry . A bdull a , 29 4 F
. 3d at 836- 37. Once handcuffed, R i chardso n eag er l y s hare d hi s e xperti se of past, pre sent, and future N or thw est I nd i ana dru g deal s with anyo ne wh o w oul d l i ste n. These st at em en ts w er e volu n ta ry an d th u s ad m iss ible
. Se ei d. ( subsequent sta tem ents vol untary w hen m ade “s pontaneou sly and not as th e resu lt ofi nt errogation” ). I n h i s al te r na ti ve a r g um en t, Ri ch ar dso n c l ai m s th e enti re co nver sat ion he had w i th S er gea nt S hor tt w as func ti o na l l y e qui va l en t to a c us to di ali nt er r o g at i o n, thus tr i ggerin g M i r anda ’ s wa r n i n gr e q u i r e me n t . An officer can “int e r rogate” a susp ect for M i r anda purposes w ith ou t u tt er in g a qu es tio n . R hod e Is la n d v . Innis , 44 6 U. S
. 2 91, 3 00
- 01 ( 19 80 )
. A cus to di alc o nv er sa ti o n i s ani nter ro gat i on wh en the o ffi cerkno w s o r shou l d know that hi s “ w or ds oract i ons . . . ar e r eas onabl y l i kel y t o el i ci t a n i ncri m i nati ng r esponse . ” Id. at 301.10 N o. 11
- 1205 But“ th e po l i ce a r e no t pr o hibi te d fr o m ‘ m er ely l i st en i ng’ to [ a s uspect’ s] vo l untary st ate m ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jo nes , 60 0 F
. 3d 847, 855 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Edwards v. Ar izona , 451 U .S. 4 77, 485 (19 81 )). A n d th at is p re c ise ly w h at Ser ge an t Sh or ttd id

— w i th the exce pti on ofan i sol ate d questi on, the response to w hi ch w as c o r r e c t l y s up pr e s s e d. He t r a v e l e d t o the s c e ne o fR i c ha r dson’ s a rr esto nl y b ecause Ri chardso n w anted to sp eak w i th so m eone wh o m i ght he l p him “m ake thi s g o aw ay. ” Se rg eant Shor tt did n ot vio l ate M i r anda by obliging Rich ard son ’s des ire to talk, and the d istri ct cou rt did noter r by adm i tting Ri chardso n’s st ate m ents to Se rg eant Shor tt.
III. C ON CLU SI ON Ric hardson h as not shown thatthe dist ri ct c ourter re d by adm i tti ng the physi cal ev i dence f ound on Ric hardson’ s per son orbyadm itt i ng ev i dence of th e sta tem ents Ric hardson vol unteer ed to Deputy Sm ythe, De p u t y B o s we l l, a n d S e r g e a n tS h o r t t . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we A F F I RM Ri ch ar dso n’ s co nv i ct i o n.

9- 2- 11