UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA

v. Cr im ina l A c ti on N o. 08 -2 13 (J DB ) ED WI N T . TA NT OH,

Defendan t.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION & O RD ER Be fore the Court is [ 71] defendant Edw in Tantoh' s motion t o suppress stateme nts made by Tantoh on Jul y

22, 2008. Tantoh and f

ive co- defe ndants had be en indicted on ba nk fra ud and
re late d o ff

e ns e s o n July

17 , 2 00 8. On

July 22 , 2 00 8, Ta

nto h w a s a

rr e ste d at hi s h ome purs ua nt t o
an ar rest wa rra nt. Transc ript of May

14, 2009 Hea

ring(" Tr." ) at 11:25-12:3. The arr est took pla c e e arl y

in t he mor nin g -- be tw e e n 6 :00 and

7:0 0 a .m. -- and

wa s c arr ie d o ut b y

be tw e e n s ix and eig ht armed a g ents. I d. at 12:15-17, 33:23-34:1. Tantoh wa s immediately handcuf fed, id. at 35:20-25, and c onsented to a se arc h of his apar tment and computer , id. at 13:23-14:10. The
sear ch did not reve al any

evidenc e of c riminal activity . See id. at 32:11-33:5. Whil e the se arc h was takingplace , Tantoh re mained handc uffe d in his home for approximately

one-a nd-a- half to two hours. I d. at 24:13-14. Duringthat time, Special Ag ent Ry an Petra sek had a

conver sation with Tantoh in which Petrase k explained that the char g es ag ainst Tantoh ca

rried a sentenc e of up to 30 y ear s incarc eration. I d. at 24:24-25:8, 26:11-15. Pe tr a se k a lso e xpla ine d th a t T anto h w ou ld p ote nti a lly be de po rt e d if

c onvic te d b e c a

us e Ta nto h is
no t a U. S. c iti zen . I d. a t 26 :11 -1 7. Pe tr a se k a dv ise d T anto h th a t th e inv e sti g a tio n w ou ld a lso-2-

examine whether

the mother of T antoh' s child was involved with the alleg ed bank f raud conspirac y

beca use she wa s believed to have ca shed a f org ed che ck. I d. at 27:21-28:3. Petrase k told Tantoh that he wa s seekingTantoh' s cooper ation beca use he " did not believe that [Tantoh] was the ma stermind behind the conspira cy ." I d. at 36:23-37:5. But Petra sek did not ask Tantoh any questions at the apa

rtment. I d. at 28:25-29:3. Indeed, e ach time Ta ntoh beg an to speak about the ca se, Petrase k stopped him and told him t o wait until they wer e in a more controlled environment. I d. at 28:4-11. Once the sea

rche s were conclude d, Petrasek a nd two other a g ents transporte d Tantoh to a Secre t Service f

ield office in downtown Washington, D.C. I d. at 34:21-35:1. Tantoh wa s taken into an interview r oom and was of fer ed food, dr ink, and an oppor tunity to use the re stroom. I d. at 35:7-13. He rema ined handc uffe d. I d. at 15:23-16:5. Petrase k then aske d Tantoh if he w as still willing to speak about the ca se, and when Ta ntoh responded a ffirmatively , Petrasek r ead Tantoh his rig hts under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), usingSecre t Service Standa rd For m 47. I d. at 16:17-17:1. Petrase k g ave the form to Tantoh, let him rea d it, and then Tantoh signe d and date d it, thereby acknow ledg ing that he was a war e of his rig hts. I d. at 16:23-17:1, 17:23-18:7. Petrasek initiated a n interview, dur ing which Tantoh made the statements that ar e the subject of the prese nt motion. The interview lasted be tween 45 minutes a nd one hour. I d. at 18:14-16. At the conc lusion of the interview, Petra sek aske d Tantoh to memorialize the interview w ith a written statement, a nd Tantoh stated that he did not wish to m ake a written statement without his attorney prese nt. I d. at 19:15-23. At that point, the interview c ease d. I d. at 19:24-25.-3- AN AL YSI S Tantoh ar g ues that the stateme nts he made at the Secre t Service f ield office must be suppressed be cause they

wer e not voluntary . Although T antoh waive d his Miranda rights before g iving the statements, Petrase k had obtained T antoh' s ag ree ment to speak with the g overnme nt about the ca se seve ral hours be fore he wa s made a war e of those r ights. More over, the argument g oes, Petrase k had obtained T antoh' s ag ree ment to make a statement by making Tantoh aw are of the potential conse quence s of a c onviction. Under Miranda, statements " stemming fr om custodial interrog ation of the de fenda nt" may
no t be us e d b y

the g ov e rnme nt u

nle ss t he de fe nd ant i s ma de awa re of his ri g hts a g a ins t compulsory

self-inc rimination before making the statements. Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444. Her e, there is no dispute that Tantoh was in custody from the moment he w as ar rested at his home. Th e on ly qu e sti on , r a the r, is whe the r P e tr a se k' s c onve rs a tio n w ithTa nto h at T anto h' s h ome constitutes "inter

rog ation." T he def

inition of "interr og ation" f or purpose s of the Miranda analy sis was set forth by

the Supreme Court in Rhode I sland v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980): "the term ' interrog ation' under Mira nda re fer s not only

to express questioning, but also to any words or a ctions on the part of the police ( other than those nor mally attendant to ar

rest and
c us tod y ) t hat th e po lic e sh ou ld k

no w a re re a so na

bly lik e ly to e lic it a n in c ri min a tin g re sp on se fr om t he su sp e c t." Pe tr a se k' s o ne -s ide d c onve rs a tio n at T anto h' s h ome do e s n ot c on sti tut e "inter rog ation" unde r this definition. Petrasek wa s car eful to avoid que stioning Tantoh. See Tr. at 28:25-29:3. Nor we re Petra sek' s words or a ctions rea sonably likely to elicit an incriminating response . Indeed, e ach time Ta ntoh attempted to discuss the ca se, Petrase k interrupted him and t o l d h i mt o wa i tun t i l l at er

t o s p ea k
. I d
. at2 8 : 4 -1 1
. He n ce , i tca n n o tb e s ai d th atP et ra s ek 's-4-

conver sation with Tantoh at Tantoh' s home constitutes "c ustodial interrog ation." Tantoh neve rtheless a

rgues that the stateme nts must be suppressed bec ause the y wer e not
ma de vo luntari ly . T anto h' s p re c ise argume nt i s unc le ar; he a pp e ars to a

rgue that th e state me nts
wer e not made voluntar ily and cites to c ases like Ly numn v. I llinois , 372 U.S. 528 (1963). See Tantoh' s Mem. in Aid of Mot. at 3-4. B ut L y numn involved an interrog ation wher e the defe ndant was ne ver a dvised of her rig hts. Here , howeve r, Tantoh made the statements at issue
a ft e r b e inga dv ise d o f h is r ig hts purs ua nt t o M ir and a . K

no wi ngthat he ha d th e ri g ht t o r e ma in
s i l e n t , th e m o r e r e l e v an tqu e s t i o ni s w h e th e r T an t o h ' s w a i v e r

o f th a tr i g h tw a s v o l un t ar

y. A waive r is valid if it was made " voluntarily , knowing ly and intellige ntly ." Mira

nda, 384 U. S. at 44 4. " On ly

if the ' tot a lity

of the c ir c ums tanc e s su

rr ound ingthe int e rr og a tio n' re ve a l bo th
an uncoe rce d choice and the r equisite level of c omprehe nsion may a cour t properly conclude that the Miranda

rig hts have be en wa ived." Moran v. B urbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986) (quoting Fa re v. Micha el C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979)). Ta ntoh's c omprehe nsion of his rights ha s not been c halleng ed. He has not ave rre d that he wa s under the inf luence of alc ohol or narc otics or that he suff

ere d from any

other c ondition that im pinge d on his ability to understand his rig hts. Indeed, T antoh had some pr evious experience with the U.S. criminal justice sy stem, see Tr . at 20:1-3, which supports a c onclusion that he had some a war eness of

his rights, see Mitchell v. United States, 434 F.2d 483, 487- 88 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Instead, Ta

ntoh argues that he w as coe rce d into waiving his rig hts. By the time Tantoh
wa s g ive n h is M ir and a

ri g hts , th e argume nt g oe s, he ha d a lr e a dy be e n p e rs ua de d to c oo pe rate with Petrasek a

nd hence felt oblig ed to provide a statement. B ut this arg ument is unpersuasive. "T ruthful statements about [a def endant' s] predicament a

re not the ty

pe of ' coer cion' that-5-

thr e a te ns to r e nd e r a

state me nt i nv olu

nta ry ." Un ite d St a te s v . Pe lto n, 83 5 F .2 d 1 06 7, 10 73 (4 th Cir. 1987). Her e, Petra sek' s pre- Miranda statements to Tantoh about the potential c onsequenc es of convic tion were entirely truthful. And " [g]enera l encour ag ement to coope rate is far diff ere nt fr om s pe c if

ic pr omi se s o f l e nie nc y ." I d. He re , a lth ou g h Pe tr a se k d id e nc oura g e Ta nto h to cooper ate with the investig ation, he did not make a ny specific promises about lenienc y . Henc e, Petrasek' s pre- Miranda c onversation, in which he established that Ta ntoh wanted to make a state me nt, wa s n ot u

nc on sti tut ion a lly

c oe rc ive and

the re fo re do e s n ot r e nd e r t he late r p os tM i r an d a s t a t e m e n ti n v o l un t ar

y. Moreove r, " [a] n express written or ora l statement of wa iver of the rig ht to remain silent or of the r ight to counse l is usually strong proof of

the validity

of that wa iver." North Carolina v. Butler , 441 U.S. 369, 373 (1979); see also United States v. Yunis, 859 F.2d 953, 961 ( D.C. Cir. 1988) (" The a dminist ration of pr oper Mira nda wa rning s, followed by

a wr itten waiver

of the ri g hts de sc ri be d in

tho se wa rn ing s, wi ll u su a lly

g o f ar t ow ard de mon str a tin g that a

de c isi on to speak is not compelled." ). He re, be fore Tantoh made the statements at issue, he was a dvised of his Miranda rig hts and executed a written wa iver. This fur

ther unde rscor es the c onclusion that T an t o h ' s w a i v e r

w a s n o t i n v o l un t ar

y. A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that T anto h' s mo tio n to su pp re ss i s DE NI ED
. / s / J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: June 30, 2009