FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 76 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 03 93 -CAP-LTW-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PHILIP EMANUEL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ph il ip Em anue l ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on aft er h e co nd it io na ll y pl ead edgu il ty to on e co un t o f rec ei vi ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. §22 52 (a)( 2) an d (b ). Spe ci fic al ly, Em anue l ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f

hi s m ot io ns to supp res s al l ev id en ce o bt ai ne d fr om hi m –p rimaril y

de pi ct io ns fro m hi s co m pu te r, writ te n s ta te m en ts , andora l ad m is si on s– du rin g p ol ic e o ffi cers ’ in te rv ie w with Em anue l athi s h om e. On ap pe al , Em anue l fi rs t ar gu es th athi s co ns en t was no t v ol un ta ry , andin an y ev en t, the co m

pu te r was ret ai ne d b y

th e po li ce fo r a u nr eas on ab le pe rio d o f ti m e, an d t hi s re te nt io n e xc eed edth e sc op e o f th e co ns en t. Em anue l al so arg ue s t ha t t he de la y s o f th e p ol ic e v io la te d h is co ns ti tu ti on al po ss es so ry rig ht s i n t he co m

pu te r. He fin al ly argu es th athi s st at em en ts to po li ce were in adm is si bl e b ecau se he was i n c us to dy anddi d n ot rece iv e th e Mir an da warn in gs , andals o b ecau se th e st at em en ts were n ot 1 vo lu nt ary. At the in te rv ie w, Em anue l t ol d t he po li ce tha t t he co m pu te r co nt ai ne d im ag es of m in or s s im il ar t o apo rn og rap hi c p ic tu re tha t h is ex -wif e h adfou ndin he r ho m e. Acco rd in g t o t he off ic ers , who se tes ti m on y

th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d cred ib le , th e to ne of t he in te rv ie w was “ co rd ia l an d c on ve rs at io na l” an d “ ve ry lai d ba ck .” Em anue l al lo wedth e p ol ic e to tak e h is co m pu te r, an d h e wro te a co ns en t st at em en t i n wh ic h h e au th or iz edth e rel eas e o f th e co m pu te r fo r an al y si s, as ke d fo r he lp with h is pro bl em s, an d a sk edth atth e co m pu te r be returne d “ so on er tha n Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. C t. 1602 (1966). 1 2la te r.” Em anue l d idno t re vo ke th is co ns en t o r la te r sp eakto th e o ffi cers ab ou t

retrie vi ng hi s co m

pu te r. As a re su ltof a dm in is tra ti ve an d d ep art m en ta l d el ay s, the of fic er o bt ai ne d asea rch warran t fo r th e co m pu te r 34 da y s af

te r itwas t ak en , and th e an al y si s o f th e co m

pu te r was co m

pl et edap pr ox im at el y

ten m on th s af

te r th e warra ntwas o bt ai ne d. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a d efen da nt ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s un de r a m ix edst an dardof r ev ie w, rev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actfor cl ear e rro r an d t he di stric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f la w to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra mir ez , 47 6 F .3d12 31 , 12 35 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The co urt’s factua l fi nd in gs are co ns tru edin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty. Id
. at12 35 -3 6. 1. Cr ed ib il ity Whe re the re i s co nf

li ct in g t es ti m on y , we def

er t o am ag is tra te jud ge ’s cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns “un le ss [th e jud ge ’s] un de rs ta nd in g o f th e fac ts ap pe ars to be unbe li ev ab le .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra mir ez -Ch il el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Add it io na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt, as fact fin de r, is en ti tl ed to subs ta nt ia l d efer en ce i n re ach in g c red ib il ity de te rm in at io ns with re sp ectto wit ne ss tes ti m on y . Uni te d Sta tes v. McPh ee , 33 6 F .3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). 3As t o t he is su e o f cre di bi li ty in the in st an t ca se , th e te st im on y of the of fic ers , All enan d M ol nar, co nf li ct edwith Em anue l’s t es ti m on y with re sp ectto m an y asp ect s o f th e in te rv ie w, sp eci fic al ly, th e to ne of t he in te rv ie w, th e b eh av io r of th e o ffi cers , andst at em en ts att rib ut edto th e o ffi cers . Giv enth e subs ta nt ia l le ve l o f de fere nc e to th e fac tfi nd er, we d eferto th e m ag is tra te ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, b ecau se th e m ag is tra te ’s un de rs ta nd in g o f th e fac ts of the in te rv ie w do es no t ap pe ar t o b e u nb el ie vabl e. Se e Rami re z- Ch il el , 28 9 F .3dat 7 49 ; McPhe e , 33 6 F .3dat 1 27 5. Em anue l h as fai le d t o s ho w th atth e m ag is tra te ’s un de rs ta nd in g of th e fac ts is no t p laus ib le or p erm is si bl e, an d t he refo re the off ic ers ’ te st im on y

as to th e fac ts of t he in te rv ie w sh ou ldpro vi de th e b as is forth e d et erm in at io n o f vo lu nt ari ne ss . Se e id
.
2. Fre e an d Vo lu nt ary Co ns en t; Sco pe of C on se nt Em anue l ar gu es th athe di d n otvo lunt ari ly giv e th e o ffi cers co ns en t t o s ei ze an d s earc h h is co m

pu te r orto po ss es s t he co m pu te r fo r 11 m on th s, b utin st ead co nt en ds th athi s co ns en t an d h is writ te n s ta te m en t wer e “ th e res ul t o f co erci on an d t hr eat s” by the off

ic ers . He als o a ss ert s t ha t h e sp eci fic al ly lim it edth e ti m e fo r th e p ol ic e to ho ldth e co m pu te r by sta ti ng th athe want editreturne d “ so on er th anlat er,” an d h e co nt en ds th athe m ad e at te m pt s t o re tri ev e h is co m

pu te r fro m 4th e p ol ic e.

The Fo urth Am en dm en t, wh ic h i s ap pl ic ab le to th e st at es th ro ug h t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, p ro te ct s i nd iv idua ls fro m un reas on ab le search es an d se iz ur es by law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . Uni te d Sta tes v. Da vis , 31 3 F .3d13 00 , 13 02 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . Und er the se am en dm en ts , “ a se arch co nduc te d wi th ou t a warran t is su edup on pro babl e cau se is pe r s e un reas on ab le subjec t o nl y to a few sp eci fic al ly establ is he d a ndwell -d el in eat edex cep ti on s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 89 0 F .2d35 5, 3 60 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (quo ta ti on s an d e ll ip si s o m it te d) . “ One of t he well -es tabl is he d e xc ep ti on s t o t he pro babl e cau se an d warran t re qu ire m en ts is a se arch whi ch is co nduc te d p ur su an t t o v ol un ta ry co ns en t.” Id
. “ A con se ns ua l se arch is co ns ti tu ti on al if i t i s v ol un ta ry ; i f itis th e p ro du ctof a n e ss en ti al ly free an d u nc on st rai ne d c ho ic e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Aco st a , 36 3 F .3d11 41 , 11 51 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Vol un ta rin es s i s a que st io n o f fac t b as edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces ,” an d t he go ve rn m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t he ex is te nc e an d v ol un ta rin es s o f th e co ns en t. Id
. Rel ev an t fa ct or s i n t he de te rm in at io n o f vo lu nt ari ne ss in cl ud e th e p res en ce of co erci ve po li ce p ro cedur es , th e ex te ntof t he pe rs on ’s coo pe rat io n wi th th e of fic ers , th e p ers on ’s awaren es s o f hi s ri gh t t o re fu se co ns en t, the pe rs on ’s educ at io n a ndin te ll ig en ce, an d t he pe rs on ’s bel ie f th atno in cri m in at in g e vi de nc e 5wil l b e fo un d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pu rc el l , 23 6 F .3d12 74 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

“ Whi le kn owl ed ge of t he rig htto refu se co ns en t i s o ne fact orto be tak enin to acco un t, the go ve rn m en t n eedno t es tabl is h s uc h kno wled ge as t he si ne qu a n on of aneffe ct iv e co ns en t.” Id
. at 12 81 -8 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . In m os t ca se s, we wi ll acco rdth e d is tri ctco urt “ a g reatde al of d efer en ce re ga rd in g afin di ng of vo lu nt ari ne ss , andwe wil l d is tu rb th e ru li ng on ly if we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e tr ia l ju dg e erre d.” Gar ci a , 89 0 F .2dat 3 59 . Becau se th e tr ia l co urt u su al ly bas es it s fi nd in gs oncred ib il it y ch oi ces res ul ti ng fro m co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y , rel y in g o n t he de m ean orof wi tn es se s, we “ wil l n otov erturn th e tr ia l ju dg e’s fi nd in g t ha t [t he ] co ns en t was vo lu nt ary, un le ss itis cle arl y erro ne ou s.” Id

.

“ A con se ns ua l s earc h i s co nf in edto th e te rm s o f it s au th or iz at io n. Th e sc op e o f th e actua l co ns en t re st ric ts th e p erm is si bl e b ou nd ari es of asearch in th e sa m e m an ne r as th e sp eci fic at io ns in a warra nt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Str ic klan d , 90 2 F.2 d 9 37 , 94 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Furt he r, “ [w]henanin di vi du al gi ve s a g en eral st at em en t o f co ns en t wi th ou t ex pr es s l im it at io ns , th e sc op e o f a pe rm is si bl e se arch is no t l im it le ss . Rath er i t i s co ns tra in edby the bo un ds of reas on ab le ne ss : wh ata po li ce o ffi cer c ou ldreas on ab ly int erp retth e co ns en t t o en co m pa ss .” Id
. As th is Co urt h as he ld , 6whe th er the re were an y li m it at io ns pl acedon th e co ns en t g iv enan d whe th er the sea rch co nf

orm edto th os e li m it at io ns is to be de te rm in ed by the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . The tria l co urt’s fa ctua l de te rm in at io ns as t o t he se two is su es are al so du e d efer en ce o n app eal an d wi ll no t b e o ve rtu rn edun le ss cle arl y erro ne ou s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Blak

e , 88 8 F .2d79 5, 7 98 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The reco rdsupp orts th e m ag is tra te ’s con cl us io n t ha t Em anue l v ol un ta ril y co ns en te d t o t he sei zu re an d s earc h o f hi s co m pu te r. Accep ti ng th e m ag is tra te ’s fin di ng s t ha t the off

ic ers , andno t Em anue l, t es ti fie d c red ib ly, th e in te rv ie w oc cu rredin Em anue l's ho m e, Em anue l was no t p rev en te d fr om lea vi ng , and Em anue l d idno t as k t o l eav e o r as k t he off ic ers to lea ve . Em anue l i nv it edth e of fic ers in si de an d c oo pe rat iv el y res po nd edto th ei r qu es ti on s an d re qu es ts . Em anue l was no t thr eat en ed , coe rced , res tra in ed , han dc uf fed , pat te d d own , requi redto an swe r qu es ti on s, p hysic al ly int im id at ed , or p ro m is edlen ie nc y . Alt ho ug h t he off

ic ers were arm ed , th ey

ne ve r rem ov edth ei r weap on s fr om th e ho ls te rs . The o ve ral l t on e o f th e in te rv ie w was “ co rd ia l,” “ co nv ers at io na l,” and

“ ve ry lai d b ack .” Even th ou gh Em anue l ex hi bi te d s ig ns of a nx ie ty, he co m pl ie d wit h t he off

ic ers ’ reque stfor

co ns en t t o re le as e th e co m pu te r by com

po si ng hi s own co ns en t s ta te m en t. Em anue l ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t h e h ada pr ob le m , verba ll y as ke d fo r he lp , andrei te rat edin hi s co ns en t s ta te m en t t ha t h e was ask in g fo r he lp by relea si ng th e co m

pu te r. Even th ou gh th e o ffi cers di d n otap pe ar t o i nf orm 7Em anue l o f hi s ri gh t t o re fu se th e se arch , hi s l ev el of e du cat io n, i nt el li ge nc e, an d

work e xp eri en ce d im in is h t he im po rta nc e o f th is fact or . Em anue l kne w th ere was ch il d p orno gr ap hy onhi s co m pu te r, y ethe adm it te d t hi s t o t he off ic ers , and ne ve rth el es s i nd ic at edth athe want edto rel eas e th e co m pu te r to ob ta inhe lp with hi s p ro bl em s. Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e rel ev an t fa ct or s, an d t he m ag is tra te ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err in fin di ng th atEm anue l fr eel y an d v ol un ta ril y

co ns en te d t o t he sei zu re an d s earc h of th e co m pu te r. Se e Aco sta , 36 3 F .3dat 1 15 1; Pur cel l , 23 6 F .3dat 1 28 1. Inad di ti on , th e rec or d s up po rts th e fi nd in g t ha t t he ret en ti on of t he co m pu te r by the po li ce an d t he ov eral l t im in g fo r th e co m pl et io n o f th e ex am in at io n was withi n t he sco pe of Em anue l’s v ol un ta ry co ns en t. Altho ug h i n hi s wri tt enco ns en t, Em anue l re qu es te d t ha t t he co m pu te r be returne d “ so on er tha n la te r,” h e d idno t p la ce an y sp eci fic ti m e li m itforth e co m pl et io n o f th e fo ren si c ex am in at io n. Al so , th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atne it he r Em anue l n orhi s at to rn ey rev ok ed , li m it ed , or m od ifi edth e co ns en t. Em anue l’s t es ti m on y th athe di d n ot co nt actAll enbe cau se he di d n otha ve All en ’s card , andth athe att em pt edto co nt actMo ln ar b y

tel ep ho ne , eve n tho ug h h e actua ll y saw M ol na r in pe rs on , is un co nv in ci ng to sh ow an att em ptto rev ok e, es pe ci al ly giv enEm anue l’s l ev el of educ at io n a ndin te ll ig en ce. Als o, Em anue l’s at to rn ey di d n otrev ok e o r li m itth e 8co ns en t, ev enth ou gh he sp ok e to Mo ln ar af te r th e in te rv ie w. Alth ou gh th e sc op e of Em anue l’s co ns en t was no t l im it le ss , gi ve n t he ab se nc e o f a s pe ci fic ti m e li m it ora rev oc at io n, t he po li ce o ffi cers co ul d re as on ab ly int erp retth e o rig in al co ns en t to en co m pa ss th e ad m in is tra ti ve de la y s en co un te redbo th be fo re an d a fte r th e warra ntwas o bt ai ne d. Se e Str ic klan d , 90 2 F .2dat 9 41 . It d oe s ap pe ar tha t t he adm in is tra ti ve co nf

us io n b etweenAll enan d M ol na r, an d t he tec hn ic al weakne ss of th e APD fo ren si cs de pa rtment, d idno t re fle ctfav or ab ly on t he APD anddi d de la y th e in ve st ig at io n b ot h b efo re an d a fte r th e warra nt . Howev er, the se de la y s were u ne xp ect edan d u ni nt en de d, an d t he re i s n o s ho win g t ha t t he off ic ers in te nt io na ll y

de la y edth e in ve st ig at io n o r act edinba d fa it h, wh ic h m ig htne ga te th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e d el ay s. Fu rth er, Sh ei kh tes ti fie d t ha t t he av erag e tu rn aro un d t im e fo r a fo ren si c co m pu te r ex am in at io n was th ree t o s ix m on th s. Des pi te th e p ro bl em s, the off ic ers co ul d s ti ll reas on ab ly ass um e th atth e o rig in al vo lu nt ary co ns en t, wh ic h h adno t b een li m it edor r ev ok ed , enc om pa ss edsu ch un ex pe ct edan d u ni nt en de d a dm in is tra ti ve an d d ep art m en ta l d el ay s.
3. Vi ol at io n o f Po ss es so ry Int eres t Em anue l ar gu es th atth e d el ay s i n o bt ai ni ng th e warra ntan d i n c om pl et in g th e ex am in at io n o f th e co m pu te r were u nr eas on ab le an d i nf rin ge d o n h is 9po ss es so ry

in te res ts un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. In Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi tc he ll , we exp la in edth atanot he rwis e la wfu l s ei zu re can vi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t an d i nf rin ge up on anown er’s p os se ss ory in te res ts if t he po li ce ac t wi th un reas on ab le de la y in sec ur in g asea rch warran t. 56 5 F .3d13 47 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ The reas on ab le ne ss of t he de la y is de te rm in edin li gh t o f al l the fact s an d c irc um st an ces , andon a cas e-b y -cas e ba si s.” Id
. at 1 35 1 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . The rev ie win g c ou rt m us t ca refu ll y ba la nc e th e g ov ern m en t’s i nt eres ts ag ai ns t t he de fen dant ’s po ss es so ry in te res t i n th e it em . Id
. In Mit ch el l, po li ce o ffi cers sei zedth e h arddri ve fro m th e de fen da nt ’s com

pu te r, witho utob ta in in g h is co ns en t. Id
. at 13 49
. Bec au se Em anue l g av e h is vo lu nt ary co ns en t t o t he sei zu re an d s earc h o f hi s co m pu te r, Mit ch el l

is in ap po si te , andth e d el ay be fo re o bt ai ni ng th e warra ntdi d no t v io la te Em anue l’s co ns ti tu ti on al po ss es so ry rig ht s. Si m il arl y , th e d et en ti on of th e co m pu te r aft er the warran t was ob ta in edwas b as edon Em anue l’s co ns en t, an d di d n otvi ol at e Em anue l’s p os se ss ory rig ht s. 4. Cu st od y

Dete rm in at io n andVol un ta rin es s o f Oral Sta te m en ts Em anue l ar gu es th atdu rin g t he in te rv ie w, he was un de r su ffi ci en t re st rai nt to th in k t ha t h e was in cu st od y an d h is ora l s ta te m en ts sh ou ldbe supp res se d be cau se he was n otgi ve n t he Mir an da warn in gs . He als o c on te nd s t ha t, ev enif h e 10was no t i n c us to dy, the co erci ve act io ns of t he off ic ers an d t he to ta li ty of th e in te rv ie w res ul te d i n s ta te m en ts th atwere n otvo lunt ary an d s ho ul d b e supp res se d. The Fif th Am en dm en t p ro vi de s t ha t “ [n ]o pe rs on . . . sh al l b e co m pe ll edin an y cri m in al cas e to be a wit ne ss ag ai ns t h im se lf.” U.S. Con st . am en d. V. The Supr em e Co urt i n Mir an da “ es tabl is he d t ha t cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on can no t o ccu r be fo re a s us pe ctis warn edof [h is ] rig ht s ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n.” Uni te d St at es v. News ome , 47 5 F .3d12 21 , 12 24 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Sta te m en ts m ad e in vi ol at io n o f Mir an da are n otadm is si bl e attri al . Mir an da , 38 4 U.S. at44 4- 45 , 86 S.Ct . at 1 61 2. W e h av e d es cri be d t he tes t fo r de te rm in in g c us to dy as fo ll ows : A def en da ntis in cu st od y

forth e p ur

po se s o f Miran da whenth ere h as be ena fo rm al arre stor r es tra in t o n fr eed om of m ov em en t o f th e de gr ee as so ci at edwith aform al arres t. Whethe r [a d efen da nt ] was in cu st ody pri orto hi s fo rm al arre stde pe nd s o n wh ethe r un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , a reas on ab le m anin hi s p os it io n wo ul d feel a res tra in t o n h is free do m of m ov em en t t o s uc h e xt en t tha t h e wou ldno t fe el free to lea ve . The t es t i s o bjec ti ve : t he actua l, subjec ti ve be li efs of t he de fen da ntan d t he in te rv ie win g o ffi cer o n whe th er the de fen da ntwas fr ee t o l eav e are irr el ev an t. Un de r th e ob jecti ve st an da rd , th e rea so nabl e p ers on fro m who se pe rs pe ct iv e ‘cus to dy’ is de fin edis a reas on ab le in no cen t p ers on . Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn , 44 1 F.3 d 13 30 , 13 47 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on s, ci ta ti on s, al te rat io n, an d em

ph as is om it te d) . W e are to co ns id er se ve ral fact or s in de te rm in in g cu st od y , “ in cl ud in g whe th er th e of fic ers br an di sh ed weap on s, to uc he d th e su sp ect , or us ed la ng ua ge or a to ne th atin di cat edth atco m pl ia nc e wit h the of

fic ers co ul d be 11co m

pe ll ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Stre et , 47 2 F.3 d 12 98 , 13 09 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . If a co urt de te rm in es th at th e requi rem en ts of Mir an da ha ve be en m et , it m us t th en de te rm in e th at an y co nf es si on s or in cri m in at ory st at em en ts m ad e by a de fen da nt were vo lu nt ary in or de r to adm it su ch st at em en ts at tr i a l . Uni te d St at es v. Bern al

Ben it ez , 59 4 F.3 d 13 03 , 1 3 17 -1 8 (1 1t h Ci r.), cer t. de ni ed , 13 0 S. Ct . 21 23 (2 01 0) . The re are “ two co ns ti tu ti on al ba se s fo r th e requi rem en t th at a co nf es si on be vo lu nt ary to be adm it te d in to ev id en ce: t h e Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t se lf- in cri m in at io n an d th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fo u rt e e n t h A mend m en t.” Dick er so n v. Uni te d St at es , 53 0 U.S. 42 8, 43 3, 12 0 S. Ct . 23 26 , 23 30 (2 00 0) . W it h res pe ct to th e adm is si bi li ty of in cri m in at ory st at em en ts an d co nf e s s i o n s m ad e by a de fen da nt to po li ce, we co ns id er th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e de ta il s of th e int er ro gatio n an d the de fe ndant ’s ch arac te ris ti cs , whe n de ci di ng whe the r a co nf es si on was vo lu nt a ry. [ Th is Co urt] fo cu s[ es ] on whe th er th e p o l ic e ov erre ach ed , co ns id eri ng fact or s su ch as th e accu se d’s la c k o f educ at io n, or hi s lo w in te ll ig en ce, th e la ck of an y advi ce to th e accu se d of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, th e le ng th of d e t e n t io n, th e rep eat ed an d pr ol on ge d na ture of th e qu es ti on in g, an d th e us e of ph y si cal pu ni sh m en t su ch as t he de pr iv at io n o f fo odor s le ep . Bern al -Ben it ez , 59 4 F .3dat 1 31 9 (c it at io n, quo ta ti on s, an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) .

12Afte r a rev ie w of t he reco rdan d c on si de rin g t he to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces , we con cl ud e th atth e in te rv ie w was n ota cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on , Em anue l was no t en ti tl edto th e Mir an da warn in gs , andan y st at em en ts m ad e b y Em anue l wer e v ol un tary . Inco nc lu si on , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g Em anue l’s m ot io ns to supp res s, an d we a ffi rm . AFFIRMED. 2

Emanuel’s r equest for

oral a rgument is denied. 2 13