UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

JOHN SEIWERT

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20 CR 443

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., 

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby responds to 

defendant’s motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement. Dkt. 50. 

Because defendant’s statements to law enforcement were voluntary, the government 

respectfully requests that defendant’s motion be denied without a hearing.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Search Warrant Execution 

On July 30, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman signed a warrant 

authorizing the search of the residence located at 8830 Golfview Drive in Orland 

Park, Illinois. Ex. A ¶ 1 (ATF ROI 47). Later that same day, at approximately 2:25 

p.m., law enforcement officers executed the warrant. Id. After knocking failed to 

result in anyone answering the front door, investigators opened the door with tools. 

Id. ¶ 2. And after entering the home, investigators encountered defendant, who was 

“irate, yelling, and flailing his arms.” Id. Defendant was also observed making furtive 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:95
2

movements with his hands, and investigators handcuffed him while the entry team 

secured the residence. Id. Investigators also encountered Individual A in the kitchen. 

Id. Individual A complied with law enforcement’s requests and was not handcuffed. 

Id.

Once investigators conducted a sweep of the residence, defendant and 

Individual A were escorted to the front of the residence. Id. After it appeared that 

defendant had calmed down, ATF Special Agent David LaMonte removed the 

handcuffs. Id. ¶ 3. Investigators told defendant and Individual A that they were not 

under arrest and were free to leave, which they each acknowledged. Id. Individual A

was permitted, at her request, to reenter the residence escorted by law enforcement

to retrieve a pack of cigarettes and her phone. Id. At defendant’s request, officers 

retrieved his dog and his cell phone from the residence. Id. ¶ 4. As explained below, 

defendant’s dog traveled with defendant to the station. Agent LaMonte took 

possession of defendant’s cell phone pursuant to the search warrant, which 

specifically authorized its seizure and subsequent search. Id.

Agent LaMonte asked defendant and Individual A if they would be willing to 

speak with law enforcement at the Orland Hills Police Department. Ex. B, at 3 (MPD 

report). Agent LaMonte advised defendant and Individual A that they were not in 

handcuffs, not under arrest, and were free to leave at any time. Id. Both 

acknowledged they were free to leave and agreed to accompany law enforcement to 

the Orland Hills Police Department, where they could speak in private. Id.

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:96
3

During a consensual pat-down of defendant before defendant entered an 

unmarked police vehicle, Agent LaMonte located $600 on defendant’s person. Id.

Defendant explained that he planned to use $60 to purchase “dope” from a drug 

dealer, whom defendant identified by an initial, but that the dealer probably saw law 

enforcement and left. Id.

Transport to Orland Hills Police Department

Defendant and Individual A were transported to the Orland Hills Police 

Department in the unmarked police vehicle, which was equipped with audio and 

video recording equipment that was activated during the trip. 

Both defendant and Individual A entered the back seat of the vehicle without 

handcuffs and unaided by law enforcement. Ex. C, at 00:40-2:00 (vehicle footage). 

Individual A was holding a pack of cigarettes and a lighter; defendant was 

accompanied by his dog. Id. Before the vehicle’s doors were closed, Agent LaMonte 

asked defendant and Individual A whether they needed any “medication or anything.” 

Id. Both indicated they did not. Id. 

After the door was closed, and before Agent LaMonte and Midlothian Police 

Department Officer Matthew Kickert entered the vehicle, defendant and Individual 

A had a brief conversation during which defendant asked whether law enforcement

was “seizing all the fucking guns,” and stated that he did not know “where [he] put 

the dope at.” Ex. B, at 3 (MPD report). Defendant and Individual A then discussed

the location of the dope, and whether defendant would be charged with a crime, with 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:97
4

defendant stating, “I don’t wanna get charged for anything like that dumbass.” Id.

When Agent LaMonte entered the vehicle, he thanked defendant and 

Individual A for cooperating, indicated that their discussions would take time, and

added that they might as well go sit somewhere air conditioned. Ex. C, at 5:40-5:49

(vehicle footage). Defendant and Individual A indicated that they did not have much 

information to share. Id. at 5:49-6:03. Agent LaMonte responded that he could get 

them a bottle of water at the police department, and that they could get a “smoke out 

front” and “relax.” Id. at 5:49-6:12. Defendant then asked Agent LaMonte “what kind 

of weed [he] smoke[d]” and laughed after posing the question. Id. at 6:12-6:25.

Soon thereafter, defendant asked Agent LaMonte if they were going to the 

Orland Park Police Department. Id. at 6:47-7:05. Agent LaMonte advised defendant 

they were going to the Orland Hills Police Department because it was Tim 

McCarthy’s (the then-Orland Park Police Department Chief) last day and they were 

having a “big send-off” for him at the Orland Park Police Department. Id. Defendant 

responded, “I know T-Mac,” and later added that “T-Mac” “took a bullet for Reagan.”1

Id. Below is a still image taken from the video capturing this exchange, depicting 

defendant smiling and in a relaxed posture:

1See Mike Nolan, “Orland Park police Chief Tim McCarthy, the Secret Service agent shot 

while protecting President Reagan, to retire after 26 years,”Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2020, 

available at https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/ct-sta-orland-parkpolice-chief-retire. (last visited June 24, 2021). 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:98
5

After defendant commented that his sister was going to be “so fucking pissed,” Agent 

LaMonte reminded defendant that he was not under arrest. Id. at 7:32-8:10.

Defendant responded, “I know that,” and then asked Agent LaMonte if law 

enforcement could leave anything they found “drug-wise” in the residence. Id. 

During the trip, Agent LaMonte asked defendant whether “we have treated 

you fairly today,” to which defendant responded, “yes, sir,” then asked Agent LaMonte 

what investigators found in his house. Id. at 8:55-9:12. After Officer Kickert indicated 

that investigators probably had not even started searching the residence because 

there was “stuff everywhere,” Individual A stated that defendant’s dad “was a 

hoarder.” Id. at 9:12-9:23. Agent LaMonte expressed his condolences for the passing 

of defendant’s father.2 Id. at 9:23-9:55.

2 According to publicly available information, defendant’s father passed away in late June 

2020. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:99
6

Defendant asked whether officers found crack cocaine in the residence and 

added that he did not recall “where he put it.” Id. at 9:55-10:30. Officer Kickert told 

defendant that they did find crack in his house, but that he was “still not in 

handcuffs,” to which defendant responded that he was a “user, not a drug dealer,” 

and that “it would be different if [he] was a fucking drug dealer.” Id. at 10:30-10:45. 

Later during the drive, Agent LaMonte asked defendant how his dog was 

doing, and they had a brief exchange about the dog. Id. at 11:20-11:45. Defendant 

then stated that he was “so fucking tired” and closed his eyes while Individual A

talked about dogs. Id. at 11:45-12:45. Defendant then opened his eyes, again stated

that he was tired and that he “doesn’t know shit about nothing,” and commented that 

his sister was going to “fucking kill [him],” id. at 12:45-13:05, before closing his eyes

for the remainder of the trip to the police department. Id. at 13:05-16:30. Upon the 

opening of the vehicle door, defendant opened his eyes, picked up his dog, and walked

out of the vehicle without assistance. Id. at 16:30-16:35.

Interview at the Orland Hills Police Department

After arriving at the Orland Hills Police Department, defendant was escorted 

to an interview room equipped with video and audio recording equipment. Defendant 

walked into the room on his own without handcuffs and holding a bottle of water. At 

the start of the interview, Agent LaMonte reminded defendant that he was not under 

arrest, to which defendant responded, “I know I’m not.” Ex. D, at 2:50-2:55 (first 

interview video). Agent LaMonte also told defendant that the door was unlocked and 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:100
7

that defendant was “welcome to” leave, but added that he did not think that would 

happen because defendant had so far been a “cool dude.” Id. at 2:55-3:25. 

Agent LaMonte read defendant his Miranda rights and the waiver language 

from an “Advice of Rights and Waiver” form. Id. at 3:25-4:30. Defendant nodded his 

head as the language was read, and confirmed that Agent LaMonte had not promised 

him anything. Id. Defendant then signed and dated the waiver without hesitation or 

qualification. Id.; see also Ex. E (Advice of Rights and Waiver form). Defendant also 

agreed that Agent LaMonte had “treated him right” and was “doing his job.” Ex. D,

at 4:30-4:45 (first interview video). 

As captured in the video footage, at no point during the interview that followed 

defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights did Agent Lamonte or Officer Kickert raise 

their voices towards defendant. They remained in their chairs across the table from 

defendant. They did not make any threats or promises to defendant. Defendant 

remained attentive, and provided detail about his involvement in narcotics dealing 

that reflected that he was acting knowingly and voluntarily. 

Specifically, per the video evidence, the following occurred during the 

interview.

At the start of the interview, defendant rested his head on the table, but 

assured Agent LaMonte that he was listening. Id. at 4:45-4:55. Agent LaMonte 

requested background information, such as defendant’s social security number, which 

defendant provided. Id. at 4:55-5:30. Soon thereafter, Agent LaMonte asked 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:101
8

defendant to sit up, which defendant did while explaining that he was tired because 

he was up all night cleaning. Id. at 5:30-5:43. Agent LaMonte asked defendant when 

he “last used”; defendant admitted that he did so a couple hours ago. Id. at 5:43-5:53. 

Agent LaMonte asked defendant if he was “all right now,” and defendant responded, 

“yeah, I guess.” Id. 

Defendant told Agent LaMonte about his 20-year history of daily drug use, 

including his use of crack cocaine earlier that day. Id. When defendant appeared to 

ask why they were discussing his drug history, Agent LaMonte told defendant that 

he would see if he could provide defendant with “some referrals for some help.” After 

defendant appeared to indicate that he did not need help, Agent LaMonte stated, “I 

don’t like seeing this, dude. Your dad is part of the blue family...I think your dad 

would appreciate us at least trying to direct you to something, and whether or not 

you take it, you’re a man.” Id. at 7:00-7:25. During this exchange, defendant stated 

that he “was going to be a cop, too,” but that the degree requirements were changed.

Id.

The discussion then turned to a safe, containing numerous guns, in defendant’s 

residence. Id. at 7:25-11:00. Defendant signed a written consent to search his phone 

so that agents could obtain his sister’s phone number and seek her assistance in

accessing the safe. Id. Defendant then provided information regarding the firearm 

and drug-related activity of Individual B, including details regarding estimated dates 

of certain events. Id. at 11:00-13:40. Defendant also provided details about an 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:102
9

incident in which Individual B took a gun from him. Id. at 13:40-19:00.

During the interview, defendant alternated between sitting up and resting his 

head on the table. Defendant also yawned and appeared tired during the interview. 

Below is a still image taken from the interview video that shows defendant sitting up

as he identified individuals in photographs:

During this same portion of the interview, when Agent LaMonte indicated that he 

could try to refresh defendant’s recollection if defendant did not remember something, 

defendant appeared to state that he remembered “everything,” and referenced being 

a “functioning addict.” Id. at 19:15-19:45. 

When asked what he knew about Individual B’s background, defendant 

initially stated that he did not know “shit” about Individual B, id. at 20:45-21:00, but 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:103
10

then provided information about text messages he exchanged with Individual B, 

including messages containing addresses that defendant admitted were locations to 

which he had delivered drugs at the direction of Individual B. Id. at 19:45-30:40.

Later during the interview, when Agent LaMonte asked about two other 

individuals, defendant refused to provide information, stating that he did not “want 

the shit to come back to him, really.” Id. at 30:40-31:50. Defendant continued to 

answer questions about his text messages with Individual B, however, and provided 

additional details about Individual B taking a gun from him, including that he 

expected Individual B to provide him with drugs in exchange at a later point.3 Id. at 

31:50-35:00. During this discussion, defendant explained that Individual C asked him 

to provide a false affidavit stating that he left the gun at Individual B’s residence, 

and identified for Agent LaMonte the location at which he met with Individual C in 

connection with her request. Id. at 35:00-38:25. Defendant explained that he did not 

provide the false affidavit because he was “not an idiot” and “did not want to get 

caught up in this bullshit.” Id. at 38:25-39:10. Defendant further explained that he 

and others were doing work for Individual B, and that Individual B was paying them 

with drugs. Id. at 39:10-39:35.

In response to questions about a text message he sent to Individual B 

containing an image of money, defendant denied being a drug dealer. Id. at 39:35-

43:10. Defendant was then asked who was involved in Individual B’s operation; 

3 Individual B was charged in a federal indictment with possessing the gun he obtained from 

defendant. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:104
11

defendant indicated that Individual B worked on his own and denied knowing 

Individual B’s source of supply. Id. at 43:10-43:35. Defendant also denied knowing 

about others who were involved in drug dealing. Id. at 44:40-44:45. 

The interview then transitioned to other topics. Defendant and Agent LaMonte 

shared a laugh after Agent LaMonte stated that San Diego (the apparent city in 

which defendant last received drug treatment) was “the best city in the world,” a 

contention with which defendant disagreed. Id. at 44:45-46:20. In response to 

questions about a photograph of a dresser found at his residence, defendant 

commented that he had found old photographs, from the 1980s, that depicted the 

same dresser, and provided his exact address in the 1980s. Id. at 46:30-47:40. 

Defendant also summarized other past residences. Id. at 47:40-48:20.

Later in the interview, Agent LaMonte asked defendant how his drug use 

affected his relationship with his father; defendant indicated that it had affected his 

relationship with his entire family. Id.

The interview then turned back to narcotics trafficking and guns. When asked 

about other drug dealers, defendant provided general information about Individual 

D, but stated that he did not really know Individual D. Id. at 48:20-49:11. Defendant 

again denied knowing who supplied narcotics to Individual B, but identified two 

individuals who helped Individual B cut and weigh narcotics, and added that he 

“helped them a little bit.” Id. at 49:00-50:15. Agent LaMonte asked defendant who 

else had defendant’s father’s guns and added that defendant’s father would not want 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:105
12

his guns on the streets of Chicago; defendant responded, “nobody.” Id. at 50:15-50:30. 

Soon thereafter, Agent LaMonte told defendant that he could sit outside while 

law enforcement spoke with Individual A. Id. at 50:30-52:30. Defendant stood up on 

his own, walked to the door, opened it, and exited the room with Officer Kickert 

behind him. Id. Defendant later reentered the interview room to ask Agent LaMonte 

if he could help him expunge a ticket. Id. at 52:30-53:55. Below is a still image taken 

from the interview video footage capturing defendant making his request, again 

showing defendant to be attentive and not inebriated:4

After their interview of Individual A, the interviewing officers asked defendant to 

answer additional questions. As defendant walked back into the room on his own and 

without handcuffs, Agent LaMonte stated, “sorry, man, I know you’re tired, we woke 

you up.” Ex. F, at 00:35-00:45 (second interview video). Agent LaMonte then 

4 Agent LaMonte told defendant that he did not have authority to get the ticket expunged. Id. at 

53:00-53:55.

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:106
13

explained that he had additional questions about defendant’s text messages with 

Individual B—namely, a text message sent with a photograph of a gun on defendant’s 

leg. Id. at 00:45-1:15. Before Agent LaMonte was able to locate a copy of the text 

message, defendant recalled the specific message. Id. at 1:15-2:15. Defendant also 

identified the caliber of a gun in the photograph, the length of the gun’s barrel, and 

its price. Id. Defendant estimated that there were over 100 guns in the safe at his 

residence, and that his father (the owner of the guns) kept guns throughout the house. 

Id. at 2:15-3:15. Defendant then provided additional information about Individual B. 

Id. at 3:15-6:45. 

Before walking out of the room at the end of the interview, Agent LaMonte 

offered defendant a bottle of water, which defendant declined. Id. at 6:45-7:00. 

Defendant asked if he could go smoke. Id. Agent LaMonte reminded defendant that 

the door was unlocked, and stated, “yeah, go smoke.” Id.

Following the interview, defendant left the interview room and remained in 

the lobby of the police department. Ex. G ¶ 5. (ATF ROI 48). Defendant asked Officer 

Kickert, who was standing nearby, if officers “can’t just leave the dope? I’m gonna be 

sick if I don’t get any.” Id. Shortly thereafter, defendant was arrested in the lobby. 

Id. ¶ 6. Defendant was handcuffed and transported to the Orland Park Police 

Department for housing pending his appearance in federal court. Id. ¶¶ 6-9.

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:107
14

B. Procedural History

On July 31, 2020, defendant was charged by complaint with being an unlawful 

user of a controlled substance in possession of firearm. Dkt. 1. The grand jury later 

returned an indictment charging defendant with the same offense. Dkt. 13.

C. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

On May 27, 2021, defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to law 

enforcement on July 30, 2020. Dkt. 50 (“Mot.”). In his motion, defendant argues that

the interviewing officers coerced his statements because he was under the influence 

of drugs. Mot. at 7. Defendant also contends that his statements were involuntary 

because the interviewing officers referenced his father’s status as a former member 

of law enforcement. Id.

II. ARGUMENT

As reflected in the video footage, defendant provided detailed responses to 

some questions, declined to answer others, and confirmed that his drug use did not 

impair his ability to recall information and that he was a “functioning addict.” Law 

enforcement did not make any threats or promises to defendant, or otherwise coerced 

him to speak. Because the objective evidence demonstrates that defendant 

voluntarily spoke with law enforcement, his motion should be denied without a 

hearing. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:108
15

A. Defendant’s Statements Were Voluntary.

It is the government’s burden “to prove the voluntariness of [a defendant’s] 

statement by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Villalpando, 588 F.3d 

1124, 1128-29 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972)). “A 

confession is voluntary if in light of the totality of circumstances, it was not secured 

through psychological and physical intimidation but rather was the product of a 

rational intellect and a free will.” United States v. Charles, 476 F.3d 492, 497 (7th 

Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Such circumstances 

include whether the defendant was read his Miranda rights, the defendant’s age, the 

duration and nature of questioning, and whether the defendant was punished 

physically.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Trickery, deceit, even 

impersonation do not render a confession inadmissible, “unless government agents 

make threats or promises.” Id. Indeed, “[c]onfessions or other admissions obtained in 

the course of an interrogation are deemed involuntary and therefore inadmissible 

only if they are procured by threats or promises.” Id.

The totality of the circumstances, as evident from the recorded interview,

demonstrates that defendant’s statements were voluntary. 

First, defendant was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes when interviewed 

because there was no “formal arrest or a restraint on his or her freedom of movement 

of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” United States v. Patterson, 826 F.3d 

450, 455 (7th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:109
16

was advised that he was not under arrest, asked to voluntarily accompany the officers 

to the police station, permitted to bring his dog with him to the police station, not 

handcuffed during transport, and told that he could leave the station via an unlocked 

door at any time. Indeed, before being presented with a Miranda waiver, defendant 

confirmed that he understood that he was not under arrest, and was advised that he 

was free to leave through the unlocked door behind him. Ex. D, at 2:55-3:25 (first 

interview video). Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, defendant was advised 

of his Miranda rights, and validly waived any such rights in writing. 

The government has a relatively low bar to clear in proving an intelligent 

waiver of Miranda rights. Collins v. Gaetz, 612 F.3d 574, 588 (7th Cir. 2010). “It is 

only when the evidence in the case shows that the defendant could not comprehend 

even the most basic concepts underlying the Miranda warnings that the courts have 

found an unintelligent waiver.” Id. Here, by contrast, defendant nodded his head as 

Agent LaMonte read him the waiver language, orally confirmed that Agent LaMonte 

had not made any promises to him, and signed the waiver. See Ex. D, at 1:45-4:40

(first interview video). Defendant’s words and actions demonstrate that he 

understood what potential rights he had when he signed the Miranda waiver.5 

5 Defendant’s later responses to questions also reflect his understanding of his potential 

rights. When asked about Individual B, defendant tried to minimize his knowledge of 

Individual B. Id. at 20:45-21:00. Defendant also tried to minimize his involvement in cutting 

and weighing narcotics for Individual B. Id. at 49:00-50:15. These responses reflect that 

defendant knew the information he provided regarding Individual B (and his relationship 

with Individual B) could be used against him. 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:110
17

Second, the interviewing officers did not use coercion of any sort. “The issue of 

coercion is determined from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of 

the suspect.” United States v. Haddon, 927 F.2d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Before they left the residence, law 

enforcement retrieved defendant’s dog and checked to see if defendant needed any 

medication. During the interview, interviewing officers were polite and did not raise 

their voices at defendant. They remained seated during the interview and did not 

physically intimidate defendant. They allowed defendant to take a smoke break. They 

provided defendant with water and did not handcuff him. Ex. D, at 1:45-2:50 (first 

interview video). They did not threaten or promise defendant anything in exchange 

for information. In short, interviewing officers treated defendant with courtesy and 

respect. 

Contrary to defendant’s claims, at no point did the interviewing officers 

suggest that defendant was receiving (or would receive) special treatment because he 

was part of the “blue family.” See Ex. C (vehicle footage), Ex. D (first interview video), 

Ex. F (second interview video). While a false promise of leniency may render a 

statement involuntary, it must be of the sort that would render defendant unable to 

make a rational decision “by distorting the alternatives among which the person 

under interrogation is being asked to choose.” See, e.g., Villalpando, 588 F.3d at 1128-

29 (rejecting claim that false promise of leniency was made by officer who stated she 

would “sit down” with law enforcement to “work this out” and also said “we don’t have 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:111
18

to charge you”). Here, although defendant’s father was referenced a few times during 

the interview, these references were limited and did not equate to a promise that 

defendant would receive any special treatment in the event of potential criminal 

charges. See Ex. D, at 7:00-7:25 (father mentioned in reference to drug referral); id.

at 47:40-48:20 (father mentioned in connection with history of drug use); id. at 50:15-

50:30 (father mentioned in reference to location of father’s guns).

Defendant’s efforts to reframe the courteous and respectful treatment he 

received, along with Agent LaMonte’s condolences for the death of defendant’s father

and offer to provide drug treatment referrals, as a form of psychological coercion are

legally unsupported. Even assuming (as defendant does) that these actions were 

calculated to promote cooperation, they do not rise to the level of coercion. See Dassey 

v. Dittmann, 877 F.3d 297, 316 (7th Cir. 2017) (“officers may deceive suspects through 

appeals to a suspect’s conscience, by posing as a false friend, and by other means of 

trickery and bluff”).

Defendant’s assertion that his statements were involuntary because he was 

under the influence of crack cocaine at the time of the interview fares no better. Per 

defendant’s comments at the time of his interview, he used crack a few hours before 

law enforcement officers arrived at his house. But even assuming the truth of this

statement, defendant’s asserted drug use alone does not establish involuntariness. 

See United States v. Walker, 272 F.3d 407, 413 (7th Cir. 2001). 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:112
19

As an initial matter, “coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the 

finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process 

Clause.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986); Stechauner v. Smith, 852 

F.3d 708, 718 (7th Cir. 2017). “A diminished mental state is only relevant to the 

voluntariness inquiry if it made mental or physical coercion by the police more 

effective.” United States v. Chrismon, 965 F.2d 1465, 1469 (7th Cir. 1992) (citation 

omitted). Here, there was no coercion: As demonstrated above, there was no physical 

coercion, and interviewing officers’ courteous and respectful treatment of defendant, 

along with Agent LaMonte’s condolences for the death of defendant’s father and offer 

to provide drug treatment referrals, does not constitute mental coercion.

In addition, the video recording—including defendant’s physical condition, 

demeanor, ability to recall and explain detailed information and historical events, 

and refusal to answer certain questions—establishes that, despite any potential 

intoxication arising from his drug use, defendant was coherent, capable of rational 

thought, aware of his rights and, therefore, acted knowingly and voluntarily. See

United States v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (defendant’s meth use an 

hour before interview and alleged sleep deprivation did not make statements 

involuntary); United States v. Howard, 532 F.3d 755, 763 (8th Cir. 2008) (use of drugs 

did not render confession involuntary where defendant was coherent); United States 

v. Gulledge, 2020 WL 6737450, at *2-4 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2020) (finding statements 

voluntary where defendant was alert and coherent during the interview, responded 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:113
20

to questions posed to him, and did not attempt to stop the interview); see also United 

States v. Fields, 2009 WL 3029726, at *10 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2009) (Miranda waiver 

of defendant, a heroin addict, valid despite drug use in light of defendant’s 

“significant tolerance to the drug” and recording that showed defendant speaking 

“logically and clearly”). 

To be sure, defendant appeared tired during the interview. But his apparent 

tiredness, or his drug use, did not compromise his mental state or his ability to 

interact with interviewing officers. The video recording clearly establishes that 

defendant was acting rationally and exercised his will when interacting with law 

enforcement. He freely conversed with the interviewing officers. He spoke logically. 

He answered questions in a coherent manner. He appeared to understand the 

questions. He gave detailed answers. Defendant was able to recall, for example, his 

social security number (id. at 4:55-5:30), the exact address of where he lived in the 

1980s (id. at 46:30-47:40), the year he moved to Maryland (id. at 47:40-48:20), and 

the caliber of a specific gun and the length of its barrel (Ex. F, at 1:15-2:15).

The substance of defendant’s answers also reflect that he was coherent. 

Defendant actively discussed Individual B and provided detail about Individual B’s 

narcotics operation. By contrast, defendant refused to provide information about 

certain other narcotics suppliers, citing fear of retaliation. Ex. D, at 30:40-31:50 (first 

interview video). This calculation reflects that defendant understood the 

consequences of his statements, and that his will was not overborne by law 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:114
21

enforcement. See United States v. Carson, 582 F.3d 827, 834 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming 

ruling that confession was voluntary despite defendant’s claim that he had overdosed 

on heroin at the time officers administered rights where defendant chose to answer 

some questions and not others). 

Defendant’s mental acuity during the interview is further evidenced by 

defendant’s request that Agent LaMonte help him expunge a ticket. Ex. D, at 52:30-

53:55 (first interview video). This request reflects defendant’s rational attempt to 

leverage his interaction with law enforcement to obtain a personal benefit. This 

attempt, along with defendant’s other self-interested behavior during the interview, 

demonstrates that defendant exercised his free will and voluntarily spoke with law 

enforcement. 

B. An Evidentiary Hearing Is Unnecessary. 

Defendant’s allegations are based on statements made by law enforcement

during the trip to the police station and interview, both of which were video recorded

in their entirety. Defendant does not allege that law enforcement made any 

statements or took any actions relevant to his motion that are not captured on those 

recordings. Accordingly, there are no disputed issues of material fact and an 

evidentiary hearing is not necessary. United States v. Curlin, 638 F.3d 562, 564 (7th 

Cir. 2011). As set forth above, the Court must determine whether, as a legal matter, 

law enforcement’s actions towards defendant, a longtime crack cocaine addict, were 

sufficient to render his statements involuntary. That determination can be made 

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:115
22

without a hearing. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to suppress should be denied

without an evidentiary hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Ramon Villalpando 

RAMON VILLALPANDO

MAUREEN MERIN

Assistant United States Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cr-00443 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/06/21 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:116