FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DEC 20 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Adalbe rto J . J ordan, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1629 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00506 -CR- 1-OD E- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us STANLEY STREET , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 20, 200 6) Before CA RNE S and MA RCU S, Circuit Judges, and JORD AN , District Judge. * CAR NE S, Circuit Judge:2

St an le y S tr ee t w as ind ic te d f

or r obbi ng thr ee A tlanta

are a banks, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 2 113( a) & (d ), and u sin g af ir earm dur ing the com m issio n of each r obbery , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c). A fter the district co urt de nie d S tr ee t’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s hi s c onf

es sio ns, aj ur

y c onvi ct ed

him of al l t he ch arg es . H e w as se nte nc ed to 771 m onths i n pr iso n. Stree t contends th at the district court erred in adm itting his confession s and incrim inating statem ents at tr ia l and e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on f

or aj udgm en t of

a cquitta l ba se d onthe governm ent’ s failure to offe r evidence of proper venue. I. At 11:00 a.m . on Augus t 31, 2004, a custom er w as wa iting at the drivethrough window of an Atlanta ar ea W achovia bank branch when the teller m ot io ne d t o h er tha t t he ba nkwas b ei ng rob be d. A s th e cu sto m er pul le d ou t of

the drive-through line, she ca lled 911 and then saw a m an dressed in a black hooded j acket leave the bank and get in to a sm all gray car . While watching the m an get int o th e car, the c ust om er not ic ed am an ag er

a t the bank’ s f

ro nt w ind owpoi nti ng atth e m an . De scribing th e suspect’ s m ovem ents to the 91 1 operator, the c ustom er w at ch ed a s th e gr ay

c ar pe el ed ba ckw ar ds o ut o f the bank p ar kin g lo t. S he fo llo w ed the c ar , e ve ntu al ly

pul lin g up be hin d it

a t a r ed li ght w he re she r ea d th e li cen se tag nu m

be r to th e 9 11 op erat or . H av ing pe rf orm ed he r dut ie s a s agoo d3

ci ti zen , th e cu st om er s to pp edfol lo win g t he car. The A tlanta police ran the tag num be r an d tr ac ed

the c ar , agr ay

T oy ota Co ro lla , to a H er

tz Re nt- a- Car at

the A tlanta a ir port. T he y

c ont ac te d H er

tz and learned that ear lier in the day that car ha d b een ren te d t o aSta nl ey Str eet , who ha d b een a po li ce o ffi cer f ortwen ty-two y ears —fi ve in Sav an na h a nd th e la st sev en te en in Atl an ta . As a result of that inform ation, two unm arked car s containin g four FBI ag en ts and an A tlanta

pol ic e de te ct ive se t up sur ve ill an ce in Stre et ’ s ne ighbor hood an d wai te d. So m et i m e a ro u n d5 : 0 0 p .m. th e C o ro l l a p u l l ed o u to f S t re et ’s dr ive w ay . B othc ar s f

oll ow ed the Co ro lla

a s it e xit ed the sub div isi on and dro ve to a g as st at io n. T he dr ive r, la te r ide nti fi ed a s S tr ee t, f

ill ed the Co ro lla

w ithga s and le ft. Stre et

m at ch ed the de sc ri pti on o f the sus pe ct of that m or nin g’ s r obbe ry

and tw o othe r A tlanta

bank r obbe ri es that ha d oc curr ed in June and July , w hic h th e ag en ts be li ev edwere re la te d t o t hi s o ne . Af ter the Corolla pulled out of the gas station, the supervisi ng FBI agent, Jeffe ry Holm es, gave the order to initiate a tra ffi c st op . One c ar pulled in front of Stree t, blocking hi s path, and the other pu ll edup be hi nd hi m . As t he fiv e o ffi cers ex it edth e car s, St reet go t o ut of h is ve hi cl e. H e tol d th e officer s his nam e and stated that he wa s an Atlanta police off icer. A gent Holm es ide nti fi ed him se lf a s an F BI a ge nt and t old S tr ee t tha t he w an te d to dis cu ss the4

Corolla and the fact that it m ay have been involv ed in a bank robbery ear lier that da y . The off

icers w ere in plain clot hes with their w eapons ho lstered, and they explicitlyinform ed Stree t that he was not under arr est. T he agents toldStree t that they could dis cuss the rental car there in the road or r eturn to Street’ s hous e, lo cat edab ou t t wo m il es away . Stre et a gr ee d w iththe ir

sug ge sti on tha t he accom pany them to his ho m e, and he rode in the front seat of one of the unm arked cars whi le an ot he r ag en t d ro ve th e Co ro ll a. A f ewm inu te s a ft er

5:0 0 p. m . , the gr oup ar

ri ve d a t S tr ee t’ s ho use . A ge nt Holm es asked if they

could go inside to talkabout the Corolla, and Stre et invited th em in to th e li vi ng roo m . During the entire interview , S treet’ s parents watched te le vis ionin an oth er

r oom and w er e not

bothe re d by

the a ge nts . The a gents asked Street about his activiti es ear lier that day and how he had acquired the Corolla. He told th e agents that he got off work at 6:30 a. m . that m orning, rented the car , and cam e hom e and slept until 12:30 p.m ., when he w as aw ak en ed by alaw n m an . S tr ee t gave inc onsi ste nt answ er s to som e of the questio ns. A s one of the agents testified, “ Ther e w ere a lot of inconsis tencies ab out howthe r en ta l c ar

got f ro m the a ir port, or howhe got

f ro m his hou se to the ai rp ort and b ac k w iththe r en ta l c ar and whe re the c ar s w er e. ” T hose in co ns is te nc ie s i nc reas edth e ag en ts ’ su sp ic io ns .5

A ft er about an ho ur the a ge nts a ske d S tr ee t i f he w oul d c onse nt t o ase ar chof bo th th e Co ro ll a an d h is own ve hi cl e, whi ch was l oc at edin th e g arag e. Stre et both co nse nte d or al ly

and s ign ed

ac onse nt t o se ar chf

orm . T he f

orm state s th at

the s e a r c h o c c u rr e da t6 : 0 0 p . m. S tr ee t answ er ed m or e que sti ons as he w at ch ed the ag en ts s earc h th e ve hic le s. T he y dis co ve re d aloa de d handgun c lip on the f ro nt right floorboard of the Corolla. T he y kne wthat a

handgun ha d be enuse d ina ll th ree b an k ro bb eri es . Stre et tol d th e ag en ts tha t the c lip the y f ound be lon ge d to a ba ck -u p w ea pon that he ha d lo st n ine m onths e ar lie r. T he a ge nts le ft the c lip in the car, but A ge nt F itz ge ra ld thoug ht tha t i t w as “ som ewha t unusua l” that the c lip to a w ea pon Stre et

c la im ed to ha ve los t m onths b ef

or e w as on the f

loo r of ac ar that he ha d r en te d e ar lie r that day . T he se ar chof the ve hic le s la ste d a

bout thi rty m inu te s, an d t wo ag en ts lef

t St reet ’s ho us e o nc e th e se arch was c om pl et ed . The a gents and Street then returned to the living room wher e the interview co nt in ue d. About

an ho ur la te r the a ge nts a ske d S tr ee t i f he w oul d c onse nt t o a search of his bedroo m

suite. Stree t agreed and sig ned another consent to searc h fo rm . Although the form authorized the agents to search the entire house, they w er e onl y int er es te d inse ar ch ing S tr ee t’ s be dr oom and the a dj oin ing cl os et/b at hr oo m

area . Whil e Stre et

w as in the c los et

are a w ithsom e of

the oth er s, A ge nt F itz ge ra ld6

no ti cedStr eet ’s po li ce o ffi cer d ut y be lton th e fl oo r of

th e b ed ro om . H e pic ke d up the A PD r ad io tha t w as on the be lt an d turn ed it on. B ec au se F itz ge ra ld w as on a ta sk f or ce w ithsom e oth er

A tlanta pol ic e of fi ce rs , he w as f

am ili ar w iththe de partm en t’ s r ad io z one s. H e not ic ed that the r ad io h ad

be entur ne d to Z one 2, w hic h is the z one w he re that m or nin g’ s r obbe ry

too k pl ac e, and n ot Z one 1, the one to whic h S tr ee t w as a ssi gne d. F itz ge ra ld t ur ne d of f the r ad io and r ep la ce d it in St reet ’s du ty bel t o n t he flo or . Whe n S tr ee t c am e int o th e be dr oom A ge nt F itz ge ra ld a ske d hi m about his as si gn edworkzo ne an d wh athe di d wi th hi s eq ui pm en t wh en he go t o ff wo rk . Stree t responded th at he w orked in Zone 1 and that at the end of the day he turned off his radio and tookoff his belt. F itzgerald then picked the radio back up, turned iton , and ask edStr eetwhy th e rad io was t urne d t o Zo ne 2. Stree t responded th at he ha d be enm oni tor ing Z one 2. F itz ge ra ld i nf orm ed S tr ee t tha t he did

not be lie ve him and that he could easily

check police logs to see precisely when S treet turned hi s ra di o t o Zo ne 2. Stre et low er ed his he ad and s ai d “ F—

it . ” T ha t st at em en t cam e atth e en d o f th e b ed ro om sea rch , whi ch ha d l as te d abo ut for ty-fiv e m in ut es . Inr es pons e to S tr ee t’ s e xpl et ive , A ge nt F itz ge ra ld a ske d hi m if he w an te d to talk about th e robberies. Stre et said y es, and Fitzgerald suggest ed that they go back downstairs to sit in the living room . They did. Fitzger ald, H olm es and a third7

ag en t, Myers, s atdo wn wi th Str eetin th e li vi ng roo m . Age nt Fit zg eral d a sk edStr eetab ou t t ha t m orni ng ’s rob be ry . When Street re spon de d th at

he ne ed ed

m one y to pay his pr ivate se curi ty

bus ine ss p ay

ro ll, Fi tz ge ra ld l et

S tr ee t f ini sh and the n or al ly

a dvi se d hi m

that he ha d ar igh t t o r em ai n si le nt an d arig ht to ha ve a la wy er p res en t. Af ter giving Street those truncated M i r a n d awa rn i n g s , F i t z g e r a l db e g a n t o qu e s t i o n S t r e e tg e n e r a l l y a b o u tth e r o b b e ry, an d S tr ee t gave F itz ge ra ld an ov er vie wof his inv olv em en t i n th e cr im e, appare ntl y m ak in g i nc riminat in g s ta te m en ts . (N ow he re in the r ec or d are the de ta ils of tho se statem ents disclo sed.) Af ter that, Agent My ers presented Str eet w ith a wr itten waiv er fo rm , whi ch ful ly des cri be d h is Mi ran da rig ht s. Af ter discussing the form w iththe a ge nts , S tr ee t si gne d it a t 8: 00 p . m . T he re af

te r, S tr ee t c ont inu ed

to co nf es s, ev en tu al ly adm it ti ng to all th ree ro bb eri es . A ft er S tr ee t ha d c om

ple te d hi s or al state m en t, A ge nt F itz ge ra ld a ske d hi m if he wou ldpre pa re a wri tt en co nf es si on . Stre et

sa id tha t he w as too ups et to w ri te anything down, but w hen Fitzgerald offe red to wr ite out a statem ent for him , S treet ag re ed . F itz ge ra ld the n dr af te d astate m en t, a ski ng S tr ee t c lari fy ing que sti ons as he wen t al on g. Aft er co m

pl et in g t he st at em en t, Fi tz ge ral d re aditto Str eet . Stree t the n r ea d th e state m en t t o hi m se lf , m ad e tw o c or

re ct ion s, ini tia le d e ac h pa ge , and si gn edan d d at edth e st at em en t.8

T he a ge nts the n a llo w ed

S tr ee t t o m ak e se ve ra l ph one c al ls, or ganiz e his personal affa irs, and say

goodby e to his parents before he w as officially placed un de r arre st , han dc uf

fedforth e fi rs t t im e, an d t ak en to th e p ol ic e st at io n. T he ag en ts esc or te d S tre etfro m hi s h om e so m et im e b et ween 9: 30 p.m . and 10 :0 0 p .m . The r ented Corolla wa s towed to FBI headquarters, wher e the pistol clip was ret rie ve d. A ft er S tr ee t w as ind ic te d, he f

ile d am oti on t o su

ppr es s th e co nf

es sio ns h e ha d m ad e to the F BI a ge nts . Am ag istrate j udge he ld a sup pr es sio n he ar ing and th en reco m

m en de d t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t d en y th e m ot io n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d so an d a do pt edin pa rt t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fin di ng s o f fac t. At the c onclusi on of a three day trial, a j ury

found Street guilty

of all the char ges against him , and he was la te r se nte nc ed

to 771 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t. T his is his appe al . II. Stre et ’ s f ir st c ont en tio n is that the dur at ionof his de te nti on l ea din g up to his co nf es sio ns e xc ee de d th at

w hic h w as pe rm iss ibl e ba se d onr ea sona ble sus pic ion under Ter ry v. O hio, 392 U.S . 1, 88 S. C t. 1868 (1968 ), and thereby constitu ted an ar re st w ith out

pr oba ble c au se . O n th at

ba sis he arg ue s th at

his c onf es sio ns s houl d ha ve be ensup pr es se d a s th e pr oduc ts o f anarr es t tha t vi olate d th e Fo urth Am endm ent. T he district court rej ected this contentio n on two ground s. O ne wa s9

that the a ge nts ’ sto p and the e nsui ng i nve sti ga tio n of S tr ee t w as ba se d on re as ona ble sus pic ionand p ro pe r unde r T er ry , and S tr ee t w as not

in ac tua l c ust ody un ti l af te r hi s o ral an d wri tt en co nf es si on s. T he c our

t’ s a lte rn at ive gr ound

f or re j ec tin g S tr ee t’ s c ont en tio n w as that e ve n if the T er ry sto p w as tr an sf

orm ed by the passage of tim e into a de fac to arrest at som e point before Stre et confessed, there was pro babl e cau se at o r be fo re t he tra ns fo rm at io n. If so, the re w as no F ourth Am en dm en t v io la ti on an d t hu s n o n eedto supp res s t he co nf es si on s fo r th atreas on .

“ Fo r pr oba

ble c au se to ex ist , . . . an arr es t m ust be obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble ba se d onthe tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es . ” L ee v. F er raro , 284 F . 3d 1 188, 119 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) . “ T his standard is m et w he n th e fa ct s and c ir cum stanc es w ith in the of fi ce r’ s kn ow le dge , of

w hic h he or

she ha s r ea sona

bly tr ustw orthy inform ation, w ouldcause a prudent person to believe, under the cir cum stances shown, that the sus pe ct

ha s c om m itt ed . . . an of fe nse . ” Ranki n v. E vans, 133 F . 3d 14 25 , 14 35 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The o ffi cer’s o wn subjective opinion s or beliefs about probable cause are ir relevant, because it is an ob jecti ve st an da rd . Crai g v . Sin gl et ary, 12 7 F .3d10 30 , 10 42 –4 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the a ge nts ha d pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st Stree t long before he first confessed. Som etim e af ter they pulled ov er S treet’ s car jus t af te r 5: 00 p.m . and be fo re h e si gn edth e co ns en t t o s earc h fo rm at 6 :0 0 p .m .,10

the a ge nts ha d pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve that S tr ee t w as the bank r obbe r. B y 6:0 0 p.m . the a gents kn ewall of the following: (1) an e y ew itness had seen th e robber le av e the c ri m e sc en e that m or nin g and f

oll ow ed the c ar , de sc ri bin g it

and c al lin g out th e tag num

ber to the 911 op erator; ( 2) Stre et had rented a c ar m atching that d e s c r i p t i o n an dwi t h th e s a me t a g n u mb e r e a r l i e r th a tmo rn i n g b e f

o r e th e r o b b e ry; (3) Str eet had given the agents incon sistent answers to questio ns, including ones about ho w he had gott en to the airport to pick up the rental car and then gotten hom e in it; and (4) Stre et m atched the description of the m an who had com m itted th e th ree b an k ro bb eri es . These f acts com bined prov ide enough basis for a reas on ab ly pru de nt pe rs on to be li ev e th atStr eetha d c omm it te d t he ba nkrob be ry . Se e U nit ed

S ta te s v. Barn ett, 423 F . 2d 6 94, 694 ( 9thCi r. 197 0) ( pr oba ble c au se e x i s t e dw h e r e d e f

e n d a n tma t c h e dp h ys i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e r o b b e r

an dh i s n a me an d a ddr es s m at ch ed

that of the ta g onthe ge taw ay

c ar ); H oll ins v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 338 F. 2d 2 27, 229 ( 9thCi r. 196 4) ( pr oba ble c au se e xis te d w he re de fe ndant m atched general descr iptio n of the robber and a car w ith the sam e tag num ber w as pa rk edin hi s d riv eway an d re gi st ered to hi s wi fe). O f the f ac ts tha t w e ha ve inc lud ed in our pr oba ble c au se ana ly sis , the la st t o occur w as Stre et’ s incons istent answers to the agents’ question s about th e re ntal car. W e cannot tell from the district court’ s finding s or the rec ord exactly when11

Stre et gave tho se inc onsi ste nt answ er s, onl y that i t ha ppe ne d so m et im e be fo re 6:0 0 p.m ., whi ch is when he si gn edth e co ns en t t o s earc h fo rm . By that t im e, a t the latest, ther e w as probable cause to believe that Stree t wa s the bank robb er, so there is n o F our

th A m en dm en t pr obl em

w ithany de te nti on o f him

f ro m 6:0 0 p. m . unt il he be gan c onf

es sin g, w hic h w e knoww as som et im e be fo re 8:0 0 p. m . ( the ti m e on the w ai ve r of

r igh ts f orm S tr ee t si gne d) . T he que sti on i s w he the r an y de te nti on o f Stre et f ro m the ti m e he w as sto ppe d a t sh ortly a ft er 5:0 0 p. m . unt il pr oba

ble c au se had clearly

been established by6:00 p .m ., at the latest, exceeded the bounds o f a le gi ti m at e Terry sto p. Pro babl e cau se m ay ha ve ex is te d e ve n b efo re t he n, b ut we ne edno t d eci de th atbe cau se itdo es no t m at te r to th e res ul t i n t hi s ca se . InT er ry the S upr em e Co urt f

orm ulate d atw o- fo ld i nqui ry f or e xa m ini ng wh et h eran i n v es t i g at i v e s t o p i s u n re as o n ab l e u n d erth e F o u rt h Am en d m en t : “ [I ]n de te rm ini ng whe the r the se iz ur e an d se ar chw er e ‘ unr ea sona ble ’ our inquir y is a dua l on e—

w he the r the of

fi ce r’ s a ct ionw as j ust if

ie d a t i ts i nc ep tio n, and whe the r it w as r ea sona

bly r el at ed in sc ope to the c ir cum stanc es w hic h j ust if ie d th e interfer ence in the first place .” Id. at 19–20 , 88 S. Ct. at 1879. Stre et concedes, as he m ust , that the a ge nts c le ar ly ha d r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto pul l hi m

ove r in h is re nta l c ar sho rt ly a ft er 5:0 0 p. m . , ba se d onthe e vid en ce the y ha d th at ac ar w ith th atsame tag nu m

be r ha d b een us edin th e ro bb ery. T he sto p w as j ust if ie d a t i ts12

inception , le aving us with the question o f w hether the continuatio n of the stop was re as ona bly r el at ed in sc ope to the c ir cum stanc es giv ing r ise to it— tho se ci rc um stanc es be ing the ne ed to co nf irm or dis pe l the sus pic ionthat S tr ee t w as the ba nkrob be r. In United State s v. H ardy , 855 F. 2d 75 3 (11th Cir. 1988), w e set out four, none xc lus ive f

ac tor s to a id u s indif

fe re nti at ing be tw ee n aT er ry sto p and an arr es t: (1 ) the lawe nf

or ce m en t purp ose se rv ed by the de te nti on; ( 2) the dil ige nc e w ith w hic h th e of

fi ce rs pur sue d th e inv es tig at ion ; ( 3) the sc ope and i ntr usi ve ne ss o f the inv es tig at ion ; and ( 4) the dur at ionof the de te nti on. I d. a t 75 9. I n ba lanc ing the se fa ct or s, w e ar e to f

oc us o n “ w he the r the pol ic e dil ige ntl y pur sue d am eans o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n l i k e l y t o c o n f i rm o r d i s p e l th e i r

s u s p i c i o n s qu i c k l y, du r i n g w h i c h t i me it w as ne ce ssary

to de ta in the de fe ndant. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. A co sta , 363 F . 3d 1 141, 1147 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( ci tin g U nit ed S ta te s v. S harp e, 470 U . S. 675 , 686 , 105 S . Ct . 15 68 , 15 75 (19 85 )). As to the first f

actor, the agents stop ped Street and qu estioned hi m in order to d et er m ine w hy he w as in poss es sio n of

the sam e car that ha d be enuse d inabank ro bb ery earl ie r th atda y . T his w as ava lid pur pose , and the y

c ont inu ed

to pur sue it through out th e period leading up to the existence of probable cause, which w as es tabl is he d n o m or e th an an ho uraft er t he st op was m ad e.13

T he se co nd H ar dy

f ac tor is the dil ige nc e w ithw hic h th e of fi ce rs pur sue d th e investig ation. 855 F.2d at 759. T he district court’ s finding that the agents wer e dilig ent is am

ply suppo rted by

the rec ord. A t no tim e w as there an unjustified pause in the inquir

y . A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c hara ct er iz ed it , “ ea chse gm en t of que sti oni ng i nc re as ed

the quantu m

of r ea sona ble sus pic ionsuf

fi ci en t t o a llo w co nti nua tio n of

the de te nti on. ” T he a ge nts ha d alot of r ea son to s uspe ct

S tr ee t t o be ginw ith

—hi s r en ta l c ar

appare ntl y

ha d be enuse d by

the r obbe r to f

le e the sc en e of the c ri m e, and h e m at ch ed the de sc ri pti on o f the pe rs on who h ad r obbe d th e ba nk s. T he y

dil ige ntl y

que sti one d S tr ee t i n or de r to c onf irm or dis pe l the sus pic ion s ari sin g f

ro m tho se f ac ts. H is i nc onsi ste nt answ er s to the ir que sti ons in crea se d t he ir s us pi ci on s. T he a ge nts w er e not dil at or y in the inv es tig at ionand qu es ti on in g, wh ic h l edth em to pro babl e cau se jus ti fy in g fu rth er d et en ti on . The th ird Hard y

fact oris th e sc op e an d i nt ru si ve ne ss of t he in ve st ig at io n. Id . Stre et c hose to pe rm it the of

fi ce rs to que sti on h im

ins ide his hom e ins te ad

of on the str ee t. H e w as ne ith er

pe rs ona lly

se ar ch ed nor w as he handc uf

fe d or oth er w ise co nf in ed . He was to ldhe was n ot un de r arre st . T h e a g e n t s d i dn o tp e r f o rm a pr ot ect iv e swe ep of t he ho us e. Stree t wa s free to m ove about it . The a gents asked fo r hi s p erm is si on be fo re s earc hi ng an y pa rts of t he ho us e o r th e car s. St re et ’s pare nts w er e in the hou se und ist ur be d duri ng the e nti re inv es tig at ion . T he a ge nts ’14

co nd uc t was no m or e in tru si ve th an ab so lu te ly neces sa ry . The fou rth an d fi na l Har dy facto r is th e dur at io n o f th e st op or d et en ti on . Id. A s w e ha ve a lr ea dy

poi nte d ou t, w e cannot

be sur e ex ac tly

w he n S tr ee t gave the agents incon sistent answers to their question s, including th ose about h ow he had go tt en th e ren ta l ca r th atwas u se d a s a g et away car i n t he rob be ry . W e d o k no w, however, that Stree t gave those answers som etim e before 6:00 p .m . when he sign ed th e co ns en t t o s earc h fo rm . M ak i n g th e a s s u m p t i o n— g en er o u s i n St re et ’s favor —tha t he gave the inc onsi ste nt answ er s im m ed ia te ly be fo re he sig ne d th e co ns en t t o s earc h fo rm , th e dur at io n o f th e st op was ju st un de r si xt y m in ut es . We cannot say that si xty m inu te s is a lw ay s to o lo ng. T he S upr em e Co urt ha s m ad e clear that there is no quantifiable, bright line rule: Bu t our ca se s im

pose no r igi d ti m e lim itatio n onT er ry sto ps. Whil e it is c le ar that the br ev ity

of the inv as ionof

the ind ivi dua l’ s F ourth Am endm ent interests is an im portant factor in determ ining whether the se iz ur e is s o m ini m al ly intru siv e as to be j ust if

ia ble on r ea sona

ble susp icion, w e have em

phasized the need to cons ider the law e n f o r c e me n tp u r

p o s e s t o b e s e rv e db y t h e s t o p a s w e l l a s th e t i me re as ona bly ne ed ed to ef fe ct ua te tho se pur

pose s. Mu cha s a“ br igh t lin e” r ule w oul d be de sir ab le , in ev al ua tin g w he the r aninv es tig at ive detention is unreasonable, com m on sense and ordi nary

hum an experience m

ust go vern over rigid criteria . Sh arp e, 47 0 U.S. at 68 5, 1 05 S. Ct. at 15 75 (ci ta ti on s an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The f act that the duration of the stop wa s sixtym inutes do es not override the other15

three fa ctors we ighin g in favor of its validityin these circum stances. S ee U nited States v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347 , 1350–51 (11th Cir. 2000) (upholdi ng detentio n und er T er ry w he re de fe ndant w as handc uf fe d inthe ba ck

of apol ic e car fo r se ve nty -f ive m inu te s) ; H ar dy , 855 F . 2d at 76 1 ( unde r the c ir cum stanc es de te nti on f or f if ty m inutes was not too long for Ter ry purposes). T he tw o de ci sio ns c ite d by S tr ee t, U nit ed

S ta te s v. Co dd, 956 F . 2d 1 109 (11th Cir. 1992), and United States v. P erez -E sparza, 609 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir. 1980 ), are dis tin gui sha

ble . I n C odd the de fe ndant w as se iz ed , handc uf fe d, se ar ch ed and d et ai ne d inan a ir

port po lic e statio n f

or tw o and a

ha lf hours . 956 F. 2d at 11 10. I n P er ez the de fe ndant’ s c ar w as sto ppe d a t a

bor de r ch ec kpoi nt, and he w as he ld i n an in te rr oga tio n r oom f or thr ee hours . 609 F . 2d at 12 87. I n bo th cases the defe ndants were held in police-controlled locations and wer e not allowed to m ove . H er e, on the oth er hand, S tr ee t w as of

fe re d ac hoi ce about

w he re he w oul d be que sti one d; h e w as que sti one d inthe c om fo rt of his ow n ho m e; and h e w as not handc uf fe d or r es tr ai ne d inany

w ay . H e w as f

re e to m ove about

and d id so. U nlike the sus pects in Codd andPer ez, Stree t wa s not detainedfor longer than sixtym inutes withou t the existence of probable cause. For these re asons, we agree with the district court that any detention o f Str eet be fo re p ro babl e cau se was e st ab li sh eddi d n ot vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.16 III . Stree t also contend s that Agent Fitzgera ld’ s exam ination of Stre et’ s police rad io am ou nt edto an un au th or iz edsea rch in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Since Str eet confessed af ter being confronted with the fact that his po lice ra dio had be entur ne d to the z one in w hic h th e ro bbe d bank w as loc at ed , he arg ue s th at his confessions shoul d have been supp ressed as the products of an uncons titutio nal se arch . It is not clear to us that Stree t had a privacy interest in his officially

issued po li ce ra di o, b ut ev en if h e d idhi s co nt en ti on fai ls . O ne of S tr ee t’ s arg um en ts i s th at by pic kin g up the r ad io o ff

the f loo r of Stre et ’ s be dr oom

and t ur nin g it on, A ge nt F itz ge ra ld v iol at ed G a. Co de A nn. § 35 - 1- 5, a s ta tu te pro hi bi ti ng act io ns th atin te rfer e wit h p ol ic e rad io act iv it y . Pi ck ing up a pol ic e ra dio and t

ur nin g it on i s no t i nte rf

er en ce w ithpol ic e ra dio a ct ivi ty , and even if it w ere, violatin g a state statute is not tantam ount to viol ating the federal Co nst itu tio n. C f. K

nig ht v . Ja co bson , 300 F . 3d 1 272, 127 5–76 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (arr es t su ppor te d by pr oba ble c au se doe s no t c ontrave ne the F ourth A m en dm en t ev en if i t v io la te s s ta te law) . Stre et ’ s othe r ar gum en ts h av e to d o w ithw he the r he ha d auth or ity to, and ac tua lly did , c onse nt t o F itz ge ra ld’ s e xa m inatio n of the r ad io. H e ar gue s th at he co uld not have c onse nte d to A ge nt F itz ge ra ld’ s in spe ct ionof the r ad io b ec au se he17

did no t have the authority to consent si nce the ra dio was intended on ly for off icial us e. T his arg um en t i s anon -s tart er . I nspe ct ing alawe nf or ce m en t a ge nc y ’ s r ad io for signs of crim inal activity is an official use, because the purpose of the agency that owns the radio is to inv estigate crim inal activity . Besides, e ven if Stre et ac tua lly ha d la ck ed

auth or ity to co nse nt t o ase ar chof the r ad io, the iss ue is w he the r ana ge nt i n F itz ge ra ld’ s pl ac e w oul d have ha d an ob j ec tiv e, r ea sona

ble be lie f that S tr ee t w as auth or iz ed to do s o. S ee I lli noi s v. Ro dr igu ez , 497 U . S. 177 , 188, 110 S . Ct . 279 3, 280 1 ( 1990 ). B ec au se the r ad io w as a ssi gne d to S tr ee t, w ho w as in poss es sio n of

it , and the r ad io w as to be use d f or lawe nf or ce m en t purp ose s, ana ge nt r ea sona

bly w oul d have be lie ve d th at S tr ee t c oul d c onse nt t o ase ar chof it to in ve st ig at e cri m in al act iv it y . Stree t argues that he did not consent to a search of the r adio. W e have noted that “ [a ] c onse nsua l se ar chis co nf ine d to the te rm s of

it s auth or iz at ion . T he sc ope o f th e a c tu a l c o n s e n tr e s t r i c t s th e p e rmi s s i b l e b o u n d a r i e s o f as e a r c h i n th e s a me m anner as the specific ations in a w arrant. When an indiv idual giv es a genera l statem ent of consent without exp ress lim itations , the scope of a perm issib le searc h is n ot l im itl es s. R athe r it is c onstra ine d by the bounds of

r ea sona ble ne ss: w ha t a police officer could reasonably interpret the consent to encom pass.” United States v. T ay lor , 458 F . 3d 1 201, 120 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( quot ing U nit ed S ta te s v.18

St ric kl an d, 9 02 F.2d93 7, 9 41 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )). In ass es si ng reas on ab le ne ss , we consider what the parties knewto be the object of the searc h at the tim e the sear ch occurred. U nited States v. Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117 , 1119 (11th Cir. 1992). W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t S tr ee t c onse nte d to age ne ra l se ar chof hi s b ed ro om

an d i ts co nt en ts . T he c onse nt f orm that S tr ee t si gne d sp ec if

ic al ly stated that the FBI w as “perm it[ted] [to conduct] a com plete searc h” of the house as a w hol e an d “ au tho ri ze [d ] the [] a ge nts to take any it em s w hic h th ey

de te rm ine [d ] m ay be r el at ed

to the ir inv es tig at ion . ” N ow he re in or on the f orm he sig ne d di d St reet in di cat e a d es ire to res tri ctth e se arch . N or did he oth er w ise ind ic at e to the ag en ts th athe want edto ex cl ud e an y pro pe rty from

th e sc op e o f th e se arch . T he ag en ts’ be lie f that the pol ic e ra dio , in pla in v ie won the be dr oom f loo r, w as w ith in the sc ope of

the c onse nt w as r ea sona

ble . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Me le nde z, 301 F . 3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2002 ) (f

indin g that the officers did not exceed the m other’ s general consent to s earc h the bedroom when they

dism antled a speaker, because “ the stereo spe ak er w as not ase al ed c ont ai ne r an d di d no t be ar ind ic iaof

an e xpe ct at ionof pr iva cy . . . [ an d it ] w as loc at ed

in the are a that [ she ] ha d a llo w ed the of fi ce rs to se ar ch ”) . B ec au se the se ar chw as j ust if ie d ba se d onc onse nt, the re w as no F ourth A m en dm en t vi olatio n.19 IV. The f inal supp ression issu e is a Fif th Am endm ent one arising from the fac t that the f ir st v er ba l w ar nin gs A ge nt F itz ge ra ld g av e Stre et w er e ina de qua te to m ea sur e up t o th e re qui re m en ts o f Mi randav. A ri zo na , 384 U . S. 436 , 478 , 86 S . Ct . 16 02 , 16 30 (19 66 ). As a thresholdquestion , w e need to determ ine when Str eet w as in cu st od y , bec au se pre -cu st od ia l q ue st io ni ng do es no t re qu ire Mi ran da warn in gs . See Un it edSta te s v . Bro wn, 4 41 F.3d13 30 , 13 47 –4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . A.

“ A def endant is in cus todyfor the purposes of Miranda w hen there has been a ‘ fo rm al arr es t or

r es tr ai nt o n f

re ed om of m ove m en t of

the de gr ee a sso ci at ed

w ith a fo rm al arr es t. ’ ” I d. a t 13 47 ( quot ing Ca lif or nia v. Be he le r, 463 U . S. 112 1, 112 5, 103 S. Ct . 351 7, 352 0 ( 1983 )) ; se e al so U nit ed S ta te s v. Mc D ow el l, 250 F . 3d 1 354, 1362 (11th Cir. 2001) (Whether a suspect is in custod y “ depends o n whether under the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es , ar ea sona ble m anin his pos iti on w oul d f ee l a re str ai nt o n hi s f

re ed om of m ove m en t t o su che xte nt tha t he w oul d no t f ee l f re e to le av e. ” (quot at ionm ar

ks and a lte ratio ns o m itt ed )) . “ T he te st i s ob j ec tiv e: th e actual, subjective beliefs of the defendant and the interviewing officer on whether the de fe ndant w as f

re e to l eave are ir

re le vant. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mo y a, 74 F . 3d 1117 , 111 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . “ [U ] nde r the obj ec tiv e standard , the r ea sona ble20

pe rs on f ro m w hose pe rs pe ct ive ‘ cu sto dy ’ is de fi ne d is ar ea sona ble inn oc en t person.” I d. I n apply ing th is test there are several f actors w e ar e to consider, includi ng whether “ the officer s brandishedwe apons, touched th e suspect, or used langua ge or

aton e that i ndi cate d th at c om pli an ce w iththe of

fi ce rs c oul d be co m pe lle d. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. L ong, 866 F . 2d 4 02, 405 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . I t i s a tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es de te rm inatio n. B ro w n, 441 F . 3d at 13 47, 134 9. T he f ac t tha t w e ha ve a lr ea dy

de te rm ine d th at

the a ge nts ha d su ff

ic ie nt probable cause to arre st Street som etim e before 6:00 p .m ., which ended any Te rry sto p pr obl em s a t tha t po int , doe s no t m ean th at S tr ee t w as in cu sto dy

f or Mi randa pur pose s f ro m that t im e fo rw ar d. B ec au se the re is no c onst itu tio na l r igh t t o be arre sted, a suspect cannot com plain that officers postpo ned arre sting him in order to o bta in m or e inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts o r oth er e vid en ce a ga ins t hi m . H of fa v. U nit ed S ta te s, 385 U . S. 293 , 310 , 87 S . Ct . 408 , 417 ( 1966 ); U nit ed S ta te s v. A rc hbol d- N ew

ba ll, 554 F . 2d 6 65, 675 ( 5thCi r. 197 7) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. Cr av er o, 545 F. 2d 4 06, 413 ( 5thCi r. 197 7) ; K or anv. U nit ed S ta te s, 469 F . 2d 1 071, 107 1–72 (5 th Cir . 19 72 ). A s so m e of

our sis te r ci rc uit s have de ci de d, ase iz ur e doe s no t ne ce ssari ly co nst itu te c ust ody

f or Mi randapur

pose s. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. N ew ton , 369 F . 3d 659, 672 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Hudson, 210 F.3d 1184 , 1191 (10th Cir.21

20 00 ); Un it edSta te s v . Ben gi ve ng a, 84 5 F .2d59 3, 5 98 (5t h C ir. 1 98 8) (en ba nc ). The standards ar e differ ent. T he Fourth Am endm ent seizure analy sis uses th e “ free to leave” test: a per son is “ seized” w hen “ a re asonable person would [no t] fee l free to t er m inate the e nc ount er ” w iththe pol ic e. Mi lle r v. H ar ge t, 458 F . 3d 1 251, 125 7 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) . B y

c ontra st, ape rs on i s in“ cu sto dy ” fo r Mi randapur pose s on ly when there is a “ form al arr est or restra int on fre edom of m ovem ent of the degree as so ci at edwit h afor m al arre st .” Beh el er, 4 63 U.S. at 1 12 5, 1 03 S. Ct. at 35 17 . Stre et c ont en ds tha t he w as in cu sto dy f or Mi randapur

pose s f ro m the m om ent he said “ F— it” af ter A gent Fitzgerald pointed o ut that he couldlook at the pol ic e ra dio log s to c he ck S tr ee t’ s st or

y about w hy his r ad io w as tur

ne d to the sa m e zo ne wher e th e ro bb edba nkwas l oc at ed . InS tr ee t’ s vi ew , a ll of the incrim inating statem ents he m ade fr om that poin t forw ard shouldhave been supp ressed because F itzgerald screw ed up the Miranda warning that he gave Street im m ed ia te ly a ft er S tr ee t utte re d th e exple tiv e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed , and the governm ent argues, that S treet w as not in cust ody for Mir anda purposes unt il Fitzgerald orally

advised him

of his rights, which occurr ed shortly after Stree t utt er ed the e xpl et ive but

not be fo re he ha d m ad e som e inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts i n re spon se to que sti oni ng. B ec au se it doe s no t m atte r to the r es ult , w e w ill not pause to f igure out the e xa ct m om en t c ust ody

be gan bu t w ill ins te ad

a ssu m e that S tr ee t i s22

co rrec t: cus to dy for M ira nd a p ur po se s b eg an imm ed ia te ly after t he ex pl et iv e. B. W e begin our consid eration of the issue invo lving the adequacy of the oral w ar nin gs w iththe obs er

va tio n th at

a lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt op ini on s ee m s to i m p l y t h at th e q u al i t y o f M i ra n d a w arn i n g s re qu i re dm ay v ary wi t h th e s u s p ec t ’s a c tu a l kn o w l e d g e o f

h i s r i g h t s , th e g o v e rn men th a s n o tar g u e dth a tS t r e e t ’s tw e n t ypl us y ears of e xp eri en ce as a co p m at te rs in th is reg ard . T he gov er nm en t’ s r es er

ve on the po int is well founded, given this passage from the Miranda opinion itself: The F ifth Am endm ent privilege is so fun dam ental to our sy stem of c onst itu tio na l r

ule and the e xpe die nt o f giv ing an a de qua te w ar nin g as to the a va ila

bil ity of the pr ivi le ge so s im

ple , w e w ill not

pause to inquir e in i ndi vid

ua l c as es w he the r the de fe ndant w as aw ar e of his ri ght s w ith out

aw ar nin g be ing giv en . A sse ssm en ts o f the kno w le dge the defendant poss essed, based on inform ation as to his age, ed uc at ion , int el lig en ce , or

pr ior c ont ac t w ithauth or iti es , c anne ve r be m or e than sp ec ulatio n; a

w ar nin g is ac le ar cu t f

ac t. Mo re im

portant, w ha te ve r the ba ck gr ound of the pe rs on i nte rr oga te d, aw ar nin g a t the tim e of the interr ogation is indis pensable to ov ercom e its pressures an d to ins ur e that the ind ivi dua l kn ow s he is fr ee to ex er ci se the privilege at that poin t in tim e. Miranda, 384 U.S . at 468– 69, 86 S. Ct. at 1625 (citation om itted); see U nited States v. L ongb eh n, 850 F . 2d 4 50, 453 ( 8thCi r. 198 8) ( re j ec tin g th e ar gum en t tha t the sus pe ct ’ s po sit iona s apol ic e of fi ce r obvi at es the r equir em en t of aMi randa w ar nin g) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bl an d, 908 F . 2d 4 71, 474 n. 1 ( 9thCi r. 199 0) ( re j ec tin g23

the argum ent that because the suspect had prior experience w ith the crim inal justice sy stem , he knew of his rights and did not have to be com pletely warned); U nited States v. Prior, 381 F. Supp. 870, 877 (M. D. Fla. 1974 ) (r ej ecting the argum ent that a tr ai ne d and e xpe ri en ce d pr ac tic ing a tto rn ey w as not e nti tle d to his f

ull Mi randa ri ght s) . W e w ill e xa m ine the a de qua cy of the w ar nin gs S tr ee t w as giv ena s if he w er e a laym an . T he gov er

nm en t’ s po sit ion , ba ck ed up b y the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion , is that the or al w ar

nin gs A ge nt F itz ge ra ld g av e Stre et w er e ad equa te , a lbe it not a s f ull as the y c oul d have be en . Fi tz ge ra ld t es tif ie d: “ I be lie ve w he n I w as ta lki ng t o hi m orally , I told hi m

he has a right to rem ain silent and he has a right to have a lawy er present, and that’s probably pretty m uch all I told him .” T he district court credited th attes ti m on y , and th e p art ie s h av e sh ap edth ei r po si ti on s ar ou nd it . Stree t argues th atwhat Fit zg eral d t ol d h im was n ot en ou gh to co m

pl y wit h M ira nd a, an d we a g r e e w i t h h i m. T he Mi randaopi nio n it se lf c le ar ly se ts o ut the r equir ed

e le m en ts o f the w ar nin gs: H e m ust be w ar ne d pr ior to an y que sti oni ng tha t he ha s th e ri ght to rem ain silent, that anything he say s can be used against him in a court of law , that he ha s th e ri ght to the pr es en ce of

an a tto rn ey , and tha t i f he c an not a ff or d an a tto rn ey

one w ill be appoi nte d f

or him pr ior to an y que sti oni ng i f he so d es ir es .24

384 U . S. a t 47 9, 86 S . Ct . a t 16 30. A ge nt F itz ge ra ld’ s w ar nin g to S tr ee t w as onl y halfway adequate. It om itted the advice that anything Stree t said could b e used ag ai nst him in a co urt of

law , and tha t i f he c oul d no t a ff or d an a tto rn ey

one w oul d be ap po in te d fo r hi m . T his is one ins tanc e in whic h ha lf w ay is not c los e en ough fo r go ve rn m en t wo rk . It is tr ue that the S upr em e Co urt sa id i n C al if or nia v. P ry soc k, 453 U . S. 355 , 359, 101 S . Ct . 280 6, 280 9 ( 1981 ) (p er c ur iam ), that “ the ‘ ri gid ity ’ of Mi randa [does not] e xten[d] to the precise form ulation of the w arnings giv en a cr im inal defendant” and that “ no talism anic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures.” Bu t the f ac ts o f the P ry soc k c as e be lie any e xte nsi on o f its hol din g to the se f ac ts here. T he sus pe ct

in Pr y soc k w as tol d th at

he ha d th e ri ght

to re m ai n si le nt; that i f he ga ve up th atrig ht an yth in g h e sa idco ul d b e u se d a ga in st hi m in a co ur t o f la w; that he had the right to talk to a law y er bef ore he w as question ed, while he was being qu estioned, and all during th e questioni ng; and th at he had a r ight to have a la wy er ap po in te d t o re pr es en t h im at n o c os t. Id . at 3 56 –5 7, 1 01 S. Ct. at 28 08 . A state appellate court had rever sed Pry sock’ s convictio n because he had not been spe ci fi ca lly

a dvi se d th at

the r igh t t o have c ouns el appoi nte d a ppl ie d be fo re any furthe r que sti oni ng w as c ondu ct ed . I d. a t 35 8–59 , 101 S . Ct . a t 28 09. T he25

Suprem e Court char acter ized the lower court as holdin g that the war ning s, which inc lud ed e ve ry e le m en t r equir ed

by Mi randa , w er e de fi ci en t “ sim ply be ca use of the order in which they

we re given.” Id. at 361, 101 S. C t. at 2810 . While the Court unde rs tanda

bly r ej ec te d th at

ove rl y pic ky appl ic at ionof

Mi randa , it

did so o nly af te r expla ini ng tha t the of

fi ce rs in that c as e ha d a dvi se d th e de fe ndant o f al l of his ri ght s. I d. T ha t w as not

ac as e, li ke thi s on e, w he re the w ar nin gs c ove re d on ly

ha lf of the r igh ts. Duckw orth v. E agan, 492 U. S. 195, 109 S. Ct. 2875 (1989), is another de ci sio n in vol vin g th e ad equa cy of part ic ular w ar

nin gs, and the S upr em e Co urt di d say in that c as e, “ [w ] e ha ve ne ve r ins ist ed that M ir an daw ar

nin gs b e giv enin the ex ac t f orm de sc ri be d inthat de ci sio n. ” I d. a t 20 2, 109 S . Ct . a t 28 80. B ut the f ac ts of D uc kw orth are r ea dil y

dis tin gui sha

ble f ro m tho se of thi s c as e. D uc kw orth, unl ike S tr ee t, w as f

ull y and c om ple te ly a dvi se d of

a ll of his r igh ts, not

j ust ha lf of them . Id. at 198, 109 S. Ct. at 2877– 78. T he only question in that case w as whether the right to appo intm ent of counsel m eans the right to have one appo inted then and there, or instead it is eno ugh th at counsel would be appoi nted, as Duckw orth was advised, “ if and when y ou go to court.” Id. at 197– 98, 109 S. C t. at 2877 –78. T he S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t the “ if and whe n” c ont ing en cy

did not m isr ep re se nt the na tur e of the r igh t t o have c ouns el pr ovi de d, giv enthe f ull ne ss o f26

th e warn in gs pro vi de d t o Du ckwor th . T he pr obl em

in the c as e be fo re us n owis not one of f orm or phr as ing , but

of subs tance and om issio n. S treet w as not told that anything he said could be used against him

in court, advice which “ is needed in order to m ake [the suspect] aw are not onl y of the pr ivi le ge , but

a lso of the c onse que nc es of

f or goi ng i t. I t i s on ly through an aw areness of these c onsequ ences that there c an be any assurance of r eal unde rs tandi ng and i nte lli ge nt e xe rc ise of the pr ivi le ge . ” Mi randa , 384 U . S. a t 46 9, 472, 86 S. C t. at 1625 , 1626–27 . Nor w as Stre et advised that if he could no t affor d ana tto rn ey , one w oul d be appoi nte d f or him , spe ci fi c advic e w hic h is ne ed ed to co nve y that “ [t ] he f

inanc ia l a bil ity of the ind ivi dua l ha s no r el at ion shi p to the sc ope of the r igh ts i nvol ve d he re , ” an d th at “ [t ] he pr ivi le ge a ga ins t se lf -i nc ri m inatio n se cure d by

the Co nst itu tio n a

ppl ie s to a ll ind ivi dua ls. . . . ind ige nt a s w el l a s th e af fl ue nt. ” I d. a t 47 2, 86 S . Ct . a t 16 26–2 7. C. Beca use the oral Miranda w arnings Agent Fitzgerald gave S treet w ere ina de qua te , any

state m en ts d ep en din g ontho se w ar nin gs f or a dm iss ionsho uld

have be ensup pr es se d. S tr ee t, the re fo re , c onc lud es that a ll of the state m en ts h e m ad e aft er t he de fect iv e fi rs t s etof wa rn in gs were i na dm is si bl e. T he gov er nm en t dis ag re es , say ing that any sup pr es sio n r equir ed

by sho rt co m ing s inthe f

ir st s et of27

Miranda w arnings sho uld no t extend bey ond th e point where the le tter perf ect se co nd s et

of w ar nin gs w er e giv en . I n it s vi ewthe giv ing of the f ull Mi randa warn in gs act s as a st op -lo ss po in t fo r an y pro bl em wit h t he in co m

pl et e warn in gs . A s go es thi s is sue so g oe s th e co nvi ct ionbe ca use the m ost

dam ag ing state m en ts Stree t m ade, includi ng his com prehensive written confession, cam e af ter he had rece iv edth e se co nd ful l s etof wa rn in gs an d s ig ne d awaiv er o f hi s ri gh ts . In determ ining whether

a properly

warned confession is adm issib le w here th e d efen da nt ha s fi rs t g iv en an un warn edor i m pr op erl y warn edco nf

es si on , we tur n to the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio ns i n O re gon v. E lst ad , 470 U . S. 298 , 105 S . Ct . 1285 (1985), and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U. S. 600, 124 S. Ct. 2601 (2004). E lstad se ts o ut the ge ne ra l r

ule that the e xis te nc e of

apr e- w ar

nin g st at em en t do es not re qui re sup pr es sio n of

apos t- w ar

nin g st at em en t tha t w as kno w ing ly and volu ntarily

m ade, 542 U.S . at 309, 105 S. Ct. at 1293, while S eibert sets out an ex cep ti on forsi tu at io ns wher e p ol ic e em pl oy a del ib erat e “ qu es ti on fir st ” st rat eg y . 542 U . S. a t 61 7, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 13. In E lstad, the defendant confessed afte r being subjected to unwar ned cu sto dia l qu es tio nin g a t hi s ho use . 470 U . S. a t 30 0–01 , 315 , 105 S . Ct . a t 12 88–8 9, 1296 . The off

icers then took the defendant to th eir headquarter s and an hou r later ga ve hi m Mi ran da warn in gs forth e fi rs t t im e. Id . at 3 01 , 15 0 S . Ct. at 12 89 . He28

waiv edhi s ri gh ts an d m ad e a fu ll co nf es si on , bo th ora ll y

an d i n asi gn edst at em en t. Id . T he S upr em e Co urt r ej ec te d th e de fe ndant’ s c ont en tio n th at the se co nd co nf es sio n sh oul d have be ensup pr es se d a s “ fr uit of the poi sono us tre e, ” the poi son be ing the f

ai lur e to a dvi se him

of his r igh ts b ef

or e he c onf

es se d th e fi rs t t im e. I d. at 302, 309, 105 S. C t. at 1289 , 1293. T he Court explained that it would b e an

“ unw ar rante d e xte nsi on o f Mi randa ” to s uppr es s no t on ly unw ar ne d st at em en ts b ut also later statem ents that were knowinglyand volu ntarily m ade af ter proper warn in gs were fi na ll y

gi ve n. Id . T he r ule of E lst ad is that “ the a dm iss ibi lity of any sub se que nt s ta te m en t shou ld t ur n inthe se c ir cum stanc es sol el y on whe the r it is k

now ing ly and volu ntarily

m ade.” Id. In m aking th is determ ination courts are not to presum e that the e xis te nc e of

the e ar lie r unw ar

ne d st at em en t c om

pe lle d th e de fe ndant t o gi ve an oth er one , but ins te ad sho uld a ssu m e that or din ar ily

giv ing pr ope r Mi randa w ar nin gs r em ove s th e ef

fe ct of any c ondi tio ns r equir ing sup pr es sio n of the unwarned statem ent. I d. at 314, 105 S. Ct. at 1296. Where both confession s are volu ntary , ther e is no justification for suppressing the “ high ly probative evidence of avol unt ar

y c onf es sio n. ” I d. a t 31 2, 105 S . Ct . a t 12 94–9 5; s ee a lso id. a t 31 8, 105 S. Ct . a t 12 98 ( “ T he r el ev an t i nqui ry is w he the r, in fa ct , the se co nd s ta te m en t was als o v ol un ta ril y

m ad e.”).29

T he E lst ad

ge ne ra l r ule appl ie s bo th t o in stanc es , li ke thi s on e, w he re the ini tia l st at em en ts are ina dm iss ibl e be ca use of de fe ct ive w ar

nin gs and t o th ose w he re no w ar

nin gs w er e giv ena t a ll be fo re the f ir st s ta te m en ts. S ee Br

y an t v. V ose , 785 F . 2d 3 64, 366 –67 (1 st C ir . 198 6) ; W at son v. D eT el la , 122 F . 3d 4 50, 453–45 ( 7thCi r. 199 7) . U nde r the E lst ad ge ne ra l r ule , the state m en ts S tr ee t m ad e af te r he w as f

ull y a dvi se d of

his Mi randaw ar

nin gs are a dm iss ibl e, be ca use a ll of his state m en ts w er e know ing ly and v oluntari ly

m ad e. S tr ee t w as que sti one d inhis hom e; he w as not

thr eate ne d or

c oe rc ed ; he w as not

c onf ine d or r es tr ai ne d; the questio ning wa s done in a conv ersational tone; it was not unduly prolong ed; he wa s told o f som e of his rights early on; and gi ven his twenty -plus y ears of law en fo rc em en t e xpe ri en ce , S tr ee t w as f am ili ar w ithinv es tig at ive pr oc es se s and te ch ni qu es . The E lstad general rule is subjec t to the Seibert exce ption , which is aim ed at put tin g asto p to the de lib er at e use of apart ic ular pol ic e ta ct ic e m plo y ed f or the specific purpose of underm ining the Miranda rule. 542 U. S. at 618, 124 S. C t. at 2614 (K ennedy , J. , c oncurring). T he tactic in question is one where the police are ins tr uc te d, a s am atte r of

pol ic y , to pur

pose fu lly w ith hol d M ir an daw ar

nin gs whil e interrogating a susp ect in custodyin order to obtain a full confession first and then pr ovi de him

w ithf ull w ar nin gs and g et

him to re -c onf

es s. I d. a t 60 5–06 . T he30

pr oc es s is kno w n a s th e “ tw o- ste p” or “ que sti on f

ir st” ta ct ic , and i t di d no t f ind fav orin th e Supr em e Co ur t. Be ca use S ei be rt

is a plura lity

de ci sio n and Just ic e K en ne dy c onc ur re d inthe re sul t onthe narr ow es t gr ound s, it is his c onc ur

ri ng o pin ionthat pr ovi de s th e co ntr oll ing law . U nit ed

S ta te s v. G onz al ez -L au zan, 437 F . 3d 1 128, 113 6 n. 6 ( 11th Ci r. 200 6) ; s ee a lso Ro m an o v. O klahom a, 512 U . S. 1, 9, 114 S . Ct . 200 4, 201 0 (1994); Marks v. U nited States, 430 U. S. 188, 193, 97 S. C t. 990, 993 (1977). A s Ju sti ce K en ne dy

e xpl ai ne d, sup pr es sio n of apos t- w ar

nin g c onf es sio n is re qui re d if

“ the tw o- ste p in te rr oga tio n te ch nique [ is] use d inac al cu la te d w ay to un de rm in e th e Mi ran da warn in g.” Sei be rt, 4 70 U.S. at 6 22 , 12 4 S . Ct. at 26 16 . T ha t m eans tha t i f anof

fi ce r em plo y s astr at eg y

of de lib er at el y

que sti oni ng an in cu sto dy sus pe ct w ith out any Mi randaw ar

nin gs i n or de r to g et

ac onf es sio n, planni ng t o late r w ar

n th e sus pe ct

and g et him to re pe at his c onf es sio n, the pos tw ar nin g c onf es sio n is ina dm iss ibl e unl es s th e of fi ce r too k sp ec if

ic c ur at ive ste ps t o en sur e that the m id- int er

ro ga tio n w ar

nin gs a ch ie ve d th e pur

pose the Mi randa decision in tended. Id. at 621, 124 S. C t. at 2615 –16. The curative m easures re qui re d are a“ subs tanti al br eak inti m e an d c ir cum stanc e be tw ee n th e pr ew ar nin g state m en t and the Mi randaw ar nin g” or “ ana ddi tio na l w ar

nin g th at e xpl ai ns the lik el y ina dm iss ibi lity

of the pr ew ar

nin g c ust odi al state m en t. ” I d. a t 62 2, 124 S . Ct .31

at 2616. Curative m easures ar e necessar y only wher e the “ questio n first” tactic has been used. O therwise, the Elstad genera l rule that post-warning statem ents are ad m is si bl e, ev en wher e th ey fol lo w pre -warn in g s ta te m en ts th atare n ot , go ve rn s. W e w ill a ssu m e fo r pur

pose s of thi s c as e that the S ei be rt “ que sti on f

ir st” exception m ay

apply when incom

plete or defec tive war

ning s are given, j ust as w he n no w ar

nin gs are giv en . I n de ci din g w he the r the a ge nts use d th e “ que sti on fi rs t” ta ct ic a ga ins t S tr ee t, w e co nsi de r the tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es inc lud ing

“ the ti m ing , se tti ng and c om ple te ne ss o f the pr ew ar

nin g in te rr oga tio n, the co nti nui ty

of pol ic e pe rs onne l and the ove rl ap pin g c ont en t of the pr e- and p ost warning statem ents.” United States v. W illiam s, 435 F. 3d 11 48, 1159 (9th Cir. 20 06 ). The questioning of Stre et before he wa s given th e full Miranda w arnings was br ie f an d g en eral . A ge nt F itz ge ra ld d id n ot w ith hol d M ir an daw ar nin gs, sol ic it a fu ll co nf es sio n, and the n le ad

S tr ee t ba ck

thr oughhis c onf

es sio n a ga in. Fi tz ge ra ld ga ve Str eetpa rti al warn in gs up fro nt . Be ca use giv ing any

w ar nin gs unde rm ine s th e effe ctiveness of the “ questio n first” tactic, the fac t that som e w arnings were given str ongl y e vid en ce s th at

the ta ct ic w as not

be ing use d. F itz ge ra ld d id n ot s et out to int en tio na lly

c ir cum ve nt o r unde rm ine the pr ote ct ion s th e Mi randaw ar nin gs provide. H e j ust m essed up. In order for Se ibert to apply , “ the two-step32

int er ro ga tio n te ch nique [ m

ust be ] use d inac al cu la te d w ay to unde rm ine the Mi randaw ar

nin g. ” 470 U . S. a t 62 2, 124 S . Ct . a t 26 16. B ec au se it w as not , thi s is not a Seibert exce ption case. This is instead an Elstad general r ule case. Seibert, 470 U. S. at 622, 124 S. Ct . a t 26 16 ( “ T he a dm iss ibi lity of pos tw ar nin g st at em en ts s houl d c ont inu e to b e governed bythe principles of Elstad unless the delib erate two-step strategy wa s em plo y ed . ”) . A s w e ha ve a lr ea dy e xpl ai ne d, und er

the E lst ad

ge ne ra l r ule the inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts S tr ee t gave a ft er he r ec ei ve d th e fu ll, se co nd s et of Mi randaw ar

nin gs w er e pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed . T he sam e cannot be sa id o f the state m en ts S tr ee t m ad e af te r he w as in cu sto dy

but be fo re he w as giv enthe se co nd se t of w ar nin gs. A ny

e vid en ce of

tho se e ar lie r state m en ts s houl d no t have be enput be fo re t he jury. D. T he harm le ss e rr or

r ule , how ev er , is ap pli ca

ble to ev ide nc e adm itt ed

in vio la tio n of

the Mi randar

ule . U nit ed

S ta te s v. A rb ola ez , 450 F . 3d 1 283, 129 2–93 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dia z, 26 F.3d 1533, 1543 (11th Cir. 1994); U nit ed S ta te s v. A da m s, 1 F . 3d 1 566, 157 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) . T he que sti on i s whether, after

we subtract the statem ents that sho uld no t have been adm itted at Stree t’ s trial, the rem aining evid ence is so overwhelm ing th at w e ar e convinced33

be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t the im

pr ope rl y a dm itt ed e vid en ce did

not a ff ec t the ve rd ic t. A da m s, 1 F . 3d at 15 76. Stre et ’ s in cr im inatin g st at em en ts c am e in thr oughthe te sti m ony of A ge nt Fi tz ge ral d. H e te sti fi ed

that a ft er S tr ee t utte re d th e exple tiv e, he a ske d S tr ee t i f he w an te d to ta lk a

bout the bank r obbe ri es and h e sa id y es . A cc or din g to F itz ge ra ld, Stre et “pr oc ee de d to go thr oughthe thr ee dif fe re nt b an k r obbe ri es that w er e— the three diffe rent banks that were robbed.” Fi tz ge ra ld a dvi se d S tr ee t of his r igh t t o re m ai n si le nt and r igh t t o have alaw y er ; S tr ee t r es pond ed that he und er sto od b ut wan te d t o t al k. Fitzgerald told the jur y that Stree t gave “ basically a genera l ove rv ie wof

the thr ee bank r obbe ri es , about w ha t ha ppe ne d, w hy

he ne ed ed

the m oney , to fund his bus iness—sid e business, Atlanta’ s Finest Security Com pany .” He had needed the m oney to m eet his com

pany ’ s payroll. F itzgerald also said that Stre et kne wde ta ils about

the thr ee r obbe ri es and t al ke d “ ab out be ing c ove re d up w ithdis gui se a s w el l a s havin g agun , and h owhe a lso use d pe ppe r spr ay . . . a s a div er sio n and h e le ar

ne d th at div er sio n te ch nique w he n he w as in the m ar ine corps.” By that t im e, A ge nt F itz ge ra ld h ad gotte n th e standard

F BI w ai ve r fo rm

and he readStr eetall of h is rig ht s fr om th e fo rm . A ft er

S tr ee t si gne d th e fo rm

w ai vin g his right s, he “ we nt back over the bank robb eries. ” Stre et dic ta te d hi s c onf

es sio n34

as Fit zg eral d wro te itdo wn fo r hi m . A ft er it w as c om ple te , F itz ge ra ld r ea d it

to St reet an d S tre etreaditto hi m se lf b efo re s ig ni ng it . The written confession, which w as a dm itt ed

int o e vid en ce a s agov er nm en t e xhi bit , is m or e tho ro ugh than th e inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts S tr ee t m ad e be fo re he w as a de qua te ly w ar ne d of his ri ght s; i t r ec ount s ingr eate r de ta il w ha t S tr ee t ha d sa id b ef or e he w as a de qua te ly w a rn e d . As F i t z g e r a l de x p l a i n e dt o th e ju ry:

W el l, w e ha d a lr ea dy

dis cu sse d th e ro bbe ri es pr ior to m e w riting thi s, and I we nt back and while I w as wr iting , I wa s also talkin g with him to get the further details because I didn’ t have—verbally the first verbal interview that I had with him , it w as j ust real general overview of the bank robberies, and the pepper spray wa s m en ti on ed . Whe n I wa s wri ti ng it , as I was writ in g, I w o u l da l s o b e a s k i n g h i m qu e s t i o n s an dh e w a s g i v i n g me m or e de ta ils . H e w as ali ttl e bit ahe ad of m e . . . and I wou ldha ve to st op hi m

whi le I was wri ti ng . . . . Be ca use the im

pr ope rl y a dm itt ed state m en ts w er e en co m

pa sse d w ith in the m or e de ta ile d, pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed c onf es sio n, the e rr or

w as harm le ss. B ry an t, 785 F. 2d at 367 (finding harm less error in the adm issio n of an oral confession where a pr ope rl y a dm itt ed “ w ri tte n st at em en t c onf

irm ed the de ta ils of

the or al c onf

es sio n

. . .; the j ury

therefor e w ouldhave lear ned no m ore fr om

the im properly adm itted co nf es sio n th anit

did f ro m the pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed one ”) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. D an ie l, 932 F. 2d 5 17, 521 –22 (6 th C ir . 199 1) ( w he re de fe ndant’ s se co nd, a dm iss ibl e35

state m en t “ supp lie d gr eate r inf orm at ion ” than th e fi rs t, ina dm iss ibl e one did , the fi rs t c onf es sio n w as “ cum

ulativ e an d un ne ce ssary

to es ta bli shi ng the c as e ag ai nst the defendant” so that its adm issio n was har m less error) . A nd, of c our se , the pr ope rl y

a dm itt ed w ri tte n c onf

es sio n w as not

the onl y evidence against Street. T here w as also evidence establishin g bey ond d oubt that the m or nin g of the r obbe ry

S tr ee t r en te d th e ge taw ay c ar use d inthat r obbe ry

and he was d riv in g i t l at er t ha t d ay . The r obber used a pisto l, and a loaded nin em i l l i m et erp i s t o l cl i p wa s fo u n do n th e f ro n tfl o o rb o ar do f t h e r en t al ca r a tSt re et ’s ho us e th atsame day . His police radio w as turned not to the zone he w as assigned to bu t t o t he zo ne in whi ch th e ro bb edba nkwas l oc at ed . A ddi tio na lly , D av id F re em an , anothe r A tlanta pol ic e of fi ce r gone ba d, w ho w as in the sam e pr etri al de te nti on unit a s S tr ee t, te sti fi ed

a t tri al that S tr ee t ha d se nt hi m a no te ask in g fo r ad vi ce. In the note, which was adm itted into evidence, Stree t as ke d: W oul d y ou f

igh t i t kn ow ing that the G ove rn m en t kn ow s th e fo llo w ing facts. I r ented m

y getaway car s from

the airport. They

have pictures of m y pe rs ona l ve hic le ta g f

ro m the da ily park ing lot

on e ac h day

of the robberies. If the G overnm ent requests m y account book s, they would see during the m onth of June when the fir st robbery took p lace I w as in the r ed . B ut a ll of m y bil ls w er e pa id b y

c as h. I did

m ak e se ve ra l sm al l c as h de posi ts i n m y pe rs ona l and b usi ne ss a cc ount of $200 0. 00. N ow , non e of

the te lle rs c anI . D . m e an d th er e ar e no fi nge rp ri nts le ft

be hin d. W oul d y ou c ha lle nge the G ove rn m en t or36

w oul d y ou t ak e a ple a an d f ac e m ay be 10– 17 y ears . That note, the oral and w ritten confessions Stree t m ade af ter being properly

warned of his Mi randar igh ts, and the oth er e vid en ce w e ha ve dis cu sse d is dam nin g en ou gh . But th ere i s m or e. The j ury also heard a tape recording of statem ents Street m ade to his six -y ear old daught er e xpl ai nin g to he r w hy

he w as loc ke d up . O n ar ec or de d li ne f ro m the fe de ra l pe nit en tiary

in A tlanta , S tr ee t t old

he r that: “ Dad dy was b ad , rig ht ? Okay. Da d dy g o ti n t o s o m e t ro ub l e a n dh e w as b ad . He t o o ks o m e mon ey th at h e w as n ’t supp ose d to take , okay ? . . . A nd d ad dy ha d to go t o j ai l, okay ?” Whe n hi s daught er a ske d: “ Why

did y ou t ak e som e m one y ?” S tr ee t r es pond ed : “ D ad dy too k som e m one y

be ca use he r anout

of m one y , okay ? So , li ke I tol d y ou, w he n y ou b e ba d so m et im es y ou h av e to b e puni she d, y ou knoww ha t I m ean? S o r igh t no w daddy ’ s just being pun ished.” No j ury that heard all of the properly adm itted, overw helm ing evid ence against Street r easonably could have had any

doub t about hi s guilt . W e ar e co nvi nc ed

be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t the im

pr ope r adm iss ionof

the inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts S tr ee t m ad e be fo re he w as pr ope rl y w ar ne d of his Mi ran da rig ht s d idno t co nt rib ut e to th e jury’ s v erd ic t.37 V. Fi na lly , w e ad dr es s S tr ee t’ s c ont en tio n th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on f

or aj udgm en t of

a cquitta l be ca

use , a cc or din g to S tr ee t, the gov er nm en t di d n ot pro ve pro pe r ve nu e. A t the e nd o f the gov er

nm en t’ s c as e- in- ch ie f, S tr ee t m ove d un de r Ru le 29 for a j udgm ent of acquittal, c laim ing th at the governm ent had failed to prove that venue was proper. He argued that there w as no direct evidence that the crim es had occurred in the N orthern District of Ge orgia. The governm ent argued that there wa s sufficient evidence to prove venue (citing, for e xam ple, the A tlanta addresses on th e FDIC c ert ifi cat es of t he th ree b an ks , whi ch were i n e vi de nc e). It also asked the c ourt t o take j udi ci al not ic e of ve nue but

the c ourt de cl ine d, ins te ad a llo w ing th e g ov ern m en t t o re op en it s ca se -in -ch ie f an d o fferad di ti on al tes ti m on y of v en ue . The governm ent did so , r ecalling Agent Fitzger ald who testified that all three ba nk s wer e lo cat edin Atl an tawit hi n t he Nort he rn Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a. A ft er the gov er

nm en t ha d pu t i n th at

te sti m ony , w hic h un que sti ona bly proved venu e, the court asked “ Shall we consider the Rule 29 m otion renew ed?” De fense counsel answer ed “ Ye s, y our Honor, if y ou would.” A ll the c ourt sa id i n response was “ All right. Then I’ ll m ake the sam e ruling.” In his brief, Stree t co nc ed es th atitis un cl ear wh atth e co ur t m ean t b y “ th e sa m e ru li ng .” H e w an ts i t38

to m ean th at

the c ourt w as r es er

vin g ar uli ng o n hi s m oti on f

or j udgm en t of acquittal unti l the end of all the evidence. He bases his argum ent on that int er pr et at ionof

the c ourt’ s am

big uous r em ar

k. He re is how S treet’ s argum ent runs: Althoug h it is un clear what the district co urt m eant b y

“ sam e ru lin g, ” the c ourt m ust have int en de d to r es er

ve r uli ng o n th e Ru le 29 m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l un til the c los e of a ll ev ide nc e; if

so, the ev ide nc e intro duc ed

a ft er the m oti on w as m ad e, w hic h w oul d in cl ude a ll the ev id en ce t he go ve rn m en t p ut in when all owe d t o re -o pe n, m ay no t b e co ns id ered . It m ay not be consid ered, Stree t argues, bec ause the last clause of the last sentence of Rule 29(b) specifies that if the c ourt reserves until the close of all the evidence its de ci sio n onam oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l, “ it m

ust de ci de the m oti on o n the basis of the evidence at the tim e the ruling was r eserved. ” Fe d. R. Crim . P . 29 (b ). Stre et int er pr et s th at Ru le 29 l an gua ge to m ean th at if the c ourt r es er

ve s a ruling on a m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal it m ay consider onlythe evidence that was in at t he ti m e th e m ot io n was m ad e. That , ho wev er, i s n ot what th e ru le says. I n s t e a d , i ts p e c i f

i e s th a tth e e v i d e n c e t o b e c o n s i d e r e di s th a tw h i c h i s i n a tth e t i me

“ the ruling was reser

ved.” W e follow the plain m eaning of the actual wor ds used in a court rule, j ust as we do w ith statut es. See Bourj aily v. United States, 483 U. S.39

171, 178, 107 S. Ct. 2775 , 2780 (1987); Vencor H osps ., Inc. v. S tandard Lif e & A cc . I ns. Co . , 279 F . 3d 1 306, 131 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; B ur ns v . L aw the r, 53 F . 3d 1237 , 1240 (11th Cir. 1995); In re S . A tl. Fin. Corp., 767 F.2d 814, 818 (11t h Cir. 19 85 ); I n re Oest erl e, 65 1 F .2d40 1, 4 03 (5t h C ir. Un itB 19 81 ). Even if we interpret the court’ s rem arks afte r the governm ent had presented the additio nal ev ide nc e to m ean th at

the c ourt w as a t tha t po int r es er vin g ar uli ng unti l the e nd o f the case—w hich is a stretch—we still cons ider the addition al evidence of venue, be ca use that e vid en ce c am e in b ef or e the c ourt announc ed

that i t w as r es er

vin g a ru li ng . T he le ga l pr em ise of

S tr ee t’ s arg um en t w oul d f it the pr oc ed

ur al f ac ts i f the co urt ha d r es er

ve d ar uli ng o n hi s m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cq uitta l be fo re the gove rn m en t w as a llo w ed to put on i ts a ddi tio na l e vid en ce of ve nue . T he c ur at ive evidence would then have com e in after “ the ruling was reser

ved,” and for that re as on c oul d no t be c onsi de re d. U nf ortun at el y

f or S tr ee t, the re is nothin g inthe re co rd ind ic at ing that the c ourt r es er ve d ar uli ng o n hi s m oti on b ef

or e the ad di ti on al ev id en ce ca m e in . Now here prior to allow ing th e governm ent to re-open did the c ourt i m

ply that i t w as goi ng t o r es er ve r uli ng o n th e m oti on unti l the c los e of the case. T he onl y

r uli ngs the c ourt ha d m ad e w er e that i t w oul d no t t ak e j udi ci al not ic e out sid e the pr es en ce of the j ur y , and tha t the gov er

nm en t w oul d be40

pe rm itt ed to re -o pe n it s c as e in o rd er to re m ove any

que sti ons ab out

w he the r ve nue ha d b een pro ve n. Be sid es , it

w oul d no t m ak e se nse f

or the c ourt t o have pe rm itt ed the gove rn m en t t o r e- ope n it s c as e if the c ourt ha d r es er

ve d ar uli ng o n w he the r the g o v ern m en th ad p ro v en v en u e. Th at wo u l dh av e b ee n i l l o g i ca l b ec au s e, as St re et ’s ar gum en t un de rs co re s, the a ddi tio na l e vid en ce c oul d no t have be enc onsi de re d on the iss ue if

the c ourt ha d r es er

ve d ar uli ng. I t w oul d have be enpoi ntl es s to a llo w that e vid en ce in. T he onl y r ea son to h av e al low ed

the gov er

nm en t t o pu t i n ad dit ion al e vid en ce is to c ur e an y ve nue pr obl em , and i t w oul d do that on ly if the co ur t h adno t al read y

res erv eda ru li ng on th e m ot io n. When gi ve n ach oi ce we w ill int er pr et ac ourt’ s a ct ion s and w or ds t o be log ic al ins te ad of il log ic al . Fo r the se r ea sons , the a ddi tio na l e vid en ce the gov er nm en t pu t i n m ay

be co nsi de re d inde te rm ini ng whe the r the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

ve nue , and i n li gh t o f th atev id en ce t he re cl earl y was. AF FIRMED .