N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R IO YOUNG, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50317

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00765-PA-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, IKUTA, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. 1. Young’ s first se t of sta te m e nts m a d e in his hom e should not be suppre sse d be c a

use Young wa s not in “ c ustody ” unde r the m e aning of Miranda
. In the c onte xt of a

t-hom e inte rrogations, the“ be n c hm ark” for de te rm ining whe the r 

# FIL ED NOV 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.a

suspe c t is in c ustody

is whe the r the hom e ha s be c o m e a “ polic e -dom inate d
a tm osphe re .” Unite d State s v . C raighe ad , 539 F.3d 1073, 1083 (9th C ir. 2008). Young’ s hom e ha d not be c om e a polic e -dom inate d

atm osphe re . Although the fa c t tha

t m any offic e rs forc e fully

e nte re d Young’ s re s ide nc e at 6 a .m we ighs in favor of finding c ustody , the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s de m onstra

te s tha t Young
wa s not in c ustody . Unlike in C raighe a d , whe re a de te c tive ha d his ba c k to the
c lose d door a

nd bloc king thesuspe c t’ s only route out of the stora ge room , id. at 1086, Young wa s not simila rly re stra ine d. The distric t c ourt found tha t the door
c onne c ting thega

ra ge to the m a in portion of the house re m a i ne d ope n a

nd unbloc ke d during thee ntire inte rvie w. Additionally , unlike in C raighe ad , a re a s ona ble pe rson in Young’ s position would not ha ve fe lt tha t he wa s be ing isola te d from those who c ould providem ora l support. Se e id. a t 1087. Young wa s not m ove d to the ga

ra ge to isola

te him , but be c a

use the re st of the house wa s too
c lutte re d to a

rran g e thre e c ha irs in oneare a . M ore ove r, unlikein C raighe a d , 539 F.3d at 1087, Unite d State s v . K im , 292 F.3d 969, 971, 977 (9th C ir. 2002), and Unite d State s v . Be raun-Pane

z , 812 F.2d 578, 581-82 (9th C i r. 1987), whe re the polic e unila

te ra l ly im pose d the isola

tion be twe e n the suspe c t a nd those who c ould have provide d support, Young volunta rily a gre e d to be inte rvie we d se pa ra te ly from his m othe r. 2It is a lso signific an t tha t Young wa s told a

t le a st twic e , inc luding onc e at the outse t of the inte rvie w, tha t he wa s not unde r arre st a nd tha t he wa s fre e to le ave . Se e C raighe ad , 539 F.3d a

t 1087. He re , the re c ording c onfirm s tha t a re a s ona ble pe rson in Young’ s position would ha ve unde rstood hec ould ta ke a dva nta ge of the s e a dm onitions. The

tone of the inte rvie w wa s non-c onfronta tiona l, a nd the distric t c o urt found tha

t Y o ung wa s not frighte ne d or intimidate d. Se e Unite d State s v . Bassignani , 575 F.3d 879, 884-85 (9th C ir. 2009) (re ly ing on a re c ording to de te rm ine tha

t the inte rvie wwa s c onduc te d in a n “ o pe n, frie ndly

tone ,” and the suspe c t “ pa

rtic ipate d a c tive ly ” ). B e c a use a re a sona ble pe rson in Young’ s position would ha ve fe lt fre e to te rm inate the inte rvie w a

nd le ave the ga

ra ge , the distric t c ourt c orre c t ly de nie d Young’ s m otion to suppre ss his a t-hom e sta

t e m e nts. 2. Young’ s first se t of sta te m e nts we re a lso volunta ry . B a se d on the

“ tota l ity of the c irc um sta

nc e s,” Young’ s will wa s not “ ove rborne ” by the a ge nts. Unite d State s v . J e nk i ns , 938 F.2d 934, 938 (9th C ir. 1991). Young wa s a n inte llige nt 20-y e ar-old a dult who wa s atte nding c om m unity c olle ge an d wa s knowle dge a

b le a bout c om pute rs. Se e Unite d State

s v . Pre ston , 751 F.3d 1008, 1009, 1020 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (finding a ge and inte lle c tua l a bility of suspe c t im porta nt in volunta

rine ss de te rm ination). He wa s re sponsivethroughout the

3inte rvie w. Se e Doody v . Ry an , 649 F.3d 986, 994, 1011 (9th C ir. 2011). Although the i nitia l e ntry

into thehouse wa s forc e ful, a ll a ge nts ke pt the ir we a pons holstere d
and did not phy sic a lly

touc h Young a ga i n a fte r the prote c tive swe e p wa s c o m ple te . Additiona lly , the y did not a tte m pt to intim

idate or thre ate n him . The re wa s the re fore no “ im

plic it thre a t of . . . re pe tition”of a ny prior phy s ic a l c onta c t. J e nk ins , 938 F.2d a

t 940. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt prope rly de te rm ine d tha

t Young’ s sta

te m e nts we re volunta

ry , it prope rly

de nie d Young’ s m otion to suppre s s his se c ond se t of sta

te m e nts. Se e Ore

gon v . Elstad

, 470 U.S. 298, 314 (1985). 3. Nor did Missouri v . Se ibe rt , 542 U.S. 600 (2004), re quire the distric t
c ourt to suppre ss the se c ond se t of sta te m e nts. A subse que nt a dm inistra tion of Miranda warnings will not “ re m ove the c onditions tha t pre c lude [] a d

m ission of [an] e arlie r state m e nt,” Elstad , 470 U.S. a

t 314, if a “ two-ste p inte rrogat ion te c hnique wa s use d in a

c a lc ulate d wa

y to unde rm ine the Miranda w arnings,” Se ibe rt , 542 U.S. a

t 622 (Ke nne dy , J., c onc urring). As the fa c ts he re be ar no sim ila rity to the two-ste p inte rrogation proc e ss found im pe rm issiblein Se ibe rt , the distric t c o urt did not err in de ny ing Young’ s m otion to suppre ss the sta t e m e nts
m a de subse que nt to thepoly g ra ph e xam ination. AFFIRM E D
.

4