## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ar c h 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 4155 OS CA R A NT ONI O L AR A- GAR CI A, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CR- 3 9 1 - TC )

T h e o d o re R . W e c k e l, S a lt L a k e C ity , U tah , fo r D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. K ar i n M
. Foj t i k, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( B r ettL
. T ol m an, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th heron t he br i ef) , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee.
B efor e B RI S CO E , BA LD OCK , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge.
T he G overnm e n th a s i d e n t i f i e dDef e ndantO s carL ar a- G ar ci a as a pr evi ous l ydeport ed ali en . D ef

en d an t o b

jects to the m ea n s b y w h ich the G o v ern m en t disco v ere d h is i d en ti ty . In th is c a se w e h o ld th a t a f e d e ra l ag e n t’s f

a il u r e to p ro v id e a law f u llyd e tain e d su sp e c t a Mi r anda w arn ing p ri o r t o inq u ir ing ab o u t his i m m igrati o n statu s d o es n o t r eq u ir e su p p ressi on of thatst atus w here fi ng erpr i nt evi den ce subseq uen t l ycon fi rm s such st atus.2 I. T he mat er i al fac t s as found bythe di s tr ict courtand s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d ar e as fol l ow s . O ffi cerC al M i l l erof the A l pi ne, U t ah pol i ce de part m ents t opped D efe ndantO s car L ara -G ar ci a’ s vehi cl e dur i ng day l i ghthour s upon a r eportof r eckl es s dr i vi ng. D efe ndant coul d notpr oduce a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e or any other type of i dent i fi cat i on. N or coul d D efe ndant
r emem berhi s s oci al s ecur i tynum ber
. D efe ndanti ni t i al l yt ol d O ffi cer M i l l er hi s name w as “J uan G ar ci a” and hi s bi r thday w as February 2, 1972. Shor t l yther eaf t er , D efe ndantcl ai m ed hi s name w as “J uan Fi err o. ” D efe ndantr eport ed the vehi cl e bel onged t o hi s br other
. W hen d is p a tc h c o u ld n o t lo c a te a v a lid d ri v e r’ s lic e n s e f o r e ith e r “ J u a n G a rc ia ” o r “ J u a n F ie rr o ,” the off i cerbegan t o pr epar e D efe ndanta ci t at i on fordr i vi ng w i thouta l i cens e. W hi l e O f f i c e rM i l l e rp r e par ed the ci t at i on, di s pat ch i nform ed hi m thata “J uan G ar ci a” “had a N
. C
. I
. C
. hi toutof C al i forni a” f ora par ol e vi ol at i on. D i s pat ch furtheri nform ed the
o ff icer tha t C ali fo rnia w an ted to ex tr ad it e h im
. T h e o ff icer testi fied the p aro le vio lat o r’s p h ys i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n m a t c h e d D e f e n d a n ti n c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s , i n c l u d i n g w e i g h t, h e ig h t, a n d e ye col or . A l s o, the “J uan G ar ci a” w ant ed in C ali fo rni a had a bi r thdayof February2, 1973. O ffi cer M i l l er es t i m at ed h e cal l ed “b ack and forth” t o dis patch betw een f i ve an d eightt i m es,
eac h t i m e w ai t i ng betw een f i ve and fi ft een mi nut es fora r es pons e. U nabl e t o det erm i ne af t er
num erou s inqui r i es w hetherD efe ndantw as i n fac tthe “J uan G ar ci a” na m ed i n t he out s t andi ng w arr ant , the off i cerhandcuf

fed D ef endantand tr ans por t ed hi m t o the A l pi ne pol i ce s t at i on. T hi s occurr ed ar ound ni netym i nut es i nt o the s t op. St i l l unabl e t o i dent i fyD efe ndant , O ffi cerM i l l erpl ace d hi m , w hi l e handc uffe d, i n a3

confe r ence r oom . D i s pat ch i nform ed the offi certhata fe der al agentfr om I m m i gr at i on and C u sto m s E n f

o rc e m e n t (IC E ) h a d p h o n e d a n d o f f e re d to h e lp id e n tifyD e f e n d a n t. IC E a g e n ts h a d b e e n mo n i t o r i n g th e c o mmu n i c a t i o n s b e twe e n th e o f f i c e ra n d d i s p a t c h , a n d b e c a me
conce rned D efe ndantm i ghtbe an i l l egal i m m i gr ant . O ffi cerM i l l eradvi sed d ispat ch he
w o u ld w elco m e a ssist an ce . IC E A g en t T im o thyC h ard arrived at th e stati o n so o n there af ter. A g en t C h ard stat ed h e m et w ith O ff icer M il ler w h o told h im “h e w as w ait ing fo r m o re i nfo rm at i on from C al i forni a on an N
. C
. I. C
. hiton the indi vidual for l i ke scars, m arks, t at t oo s, and s eei ng i f they coul d get a phot o or fi ngerpr i nt s t o be abl e t o m at ch itu p to the i ndi vi dual
. ” O nce i n the confe r ence r oom , A gentC har d as ked D efe ndanthi s name, dat e of bi r th, pl ace of bi r th, and i m m i gr at i on s t atus . T he age ntdi d notpr ovi de D efe ndanta Mi r anda
w arni ng pr i ort o ques t i oni ng. D efe ndant s t at ed hi s name w as “J uan G ar ci a” a nd he w as an i l l egal i m m i gr antfr om M exi co. Fol l ow i ng the i nt ervi ew , A gentC har d w as i n the hal l w ay
w hen O ffi cerM i l l err eturned and i nform ed hi m that , bas ed on “s om e s car s ort att oos [w hi ch] di d notm at ch up, ” D efe ndantdi d notappea rt o be the “J uan G ar ci a” w ant ed i n C al i forni a. At th a tp o i n t , Al p i n e p o l i c e tu r n e d Def e n d a n t ’ s c u s t o d yo v e rt o I CE. B ac k a t I C E h ea d q u arters, A g en t C h ard ran an iden ti tych ec k o n D ef en d an t’ s

“ rig h t an d lef

t i n d e x f in g e r” to d e ter m in e w h e th e r D e f e n d a n t h a d p rio r “ d e a lin g s w ith i m m i gr at i on. ” T h e IC E dat abas e r ecogni zed D efe ndant ’ s fi ngerpr i nt s and r eport ed D efe ndant ’ s name as O s carL ar a- G ar ci a, a pr ev iou sl ydeport ed al i en. D efe ndantw as
c h a r g e d wi th o n e c o u n to f i l l e g a l r e e n tryi n t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n v i ol a t i on of 8 U. S
. C. § 1326. Fol l ow i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of D ef en d an t’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence4

o f h is id e n tity , D e f

e n d a n t en ter e d a c o n d iti o n a l p lea o f g u ilty , res e rv in g h is rig h t to appea l
. See Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 11( a) ( 2)
. T he di s tr i ctcourt s ent ence d D efe ndant t o 24 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . O urj ur i s di ct i on ar i s es under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. I n r evi ew i ng the deni al of
a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , w e v i e w th e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o th e G o v e rn m e n t . We
r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl earerr orand i ts d et erm i nat i ons of l aw de
n o v o . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G o n za les, 3 9 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 8 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). II. D e f e n d a n t as se rte d in th e d istric t c o u rt, a s h e d o e s o n a p p e a l, th a t A g e n t C h a rd “ d id
n o t h a v e a su f

f icie n t b a sis to d e tain h im to in v e stig a te h is im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s a n d th a t all evi dence obt ai ned as a r es ul t of hi s det ent i on, i ncl udi ng evi dence of hi s i dent i ty , s houl d be
s uppr es s ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. L ar a- G ar ci a, N o. 2: 05- C R
- 391- T C , m emo. dec. at 8 ( D
. U t ah, M ar ch 31, 2006)
. I n a t hor ough or der , the di s tr i ctcourtfi r s tconcl uded O ffi cerM i l l erhad p ro b a b le c a u se to d e tain D e f e n d a n t at th e p o lice sta tio n w h ile th e o f f ice r a ttem p ted to
as cert ai n D efe ndant ’ s i dent i ty and det erm i ne w hether he w as the “J uan G ar ci a” na m ed i n t he C a lifo rn ia w a rra n t. Id . at 8 -1 0 . T h e c o u rt f u rth e r c o n c lu d e d O f

f ice r M ill e r h a d p ro b a b le
caus e t o arr es tD efe ndantforfai l ur e t o pos s es s a val id d ri ver ’ s l i cens e. I d. at10- 11. T he
courtnextconcl uded A gentC har d’ s ques t i on conce rni ng D efe ndant ’ s i m m i gr at i on s t atus
cons t i tut ed a c ustod ial int err ogat i on r equi r i ng a Mi r anda w arni ng. B eca us e the age nthad not pr ovi ded D efe ndanta Mi r anda w arni ng, D efe ndant ’ s admi s s i on thathe w as an i l l egal im m igran t w as su p p ressible. Id
. a t 11 -14
. N o n ethe less, u n d er the inev it ab le disco v ery
e x c e p tio n to th e e x c lu sio n a ryru le, e v id e n c e o f D e f e n d a n t’s id e n tityo b tain e d su b se q u e n t to5

hi s s t at ement w as admi s s i bl e agai ns t hi m beca us e, acc or di ng t o the court , A gentC har d had p ro b a b le c a u se to in v e s ti g a te D e f e n d a n t’s id e n titya p a rt f ro m th e in c rim in a tin g sta tem e n t. I d. at14- 19. A. D e f e n d a n t f irst a rg u e s th a t at th e tim e o f q u e stio n in g , A g e n t C hard la c k e d “ re a so n a b le
s u s p i c i o n ” t o b e l i e v e De f e n d a n twa s a n i l l e g a l i mmi g r a nt . Ac c o r d i n g t o De f e n d a n t , I CE
u n l a w f u l l y i n t e r j e c t e d i t s e l f i n t o th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o q u e s t i o n D e f e n d a n ta b o u th i s i d e n t i ty. D efe ndantfaul t s the di s tr i ct court for fai l i ng t o “comm entdi r ect l yon w hetherfede r al agent C har d h ad rea so n ab le su sp ici o n to stop an d q u esti o n [D ef en d an t]
. ” D ef

en d antas s ert s O ffi cer M i l l e rtr a n s p o r t e d h i m t o th e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o rn o o th e rr e a s o n th a n t o h a n d h i m o v e rt o I CE b ase d o n IC E ’s “h u n ch ” h e m igh t b e an il lega l im m igran t. D ef en d an t say s “A g en t C h ard ’s
s t op and ques t i oni ng of [D efe ndant ] s houl d be dee m ed i nves t i gat ory , notbas ed upon
re a sonab l e suspi ci on , un part i cular i zed, general i n n ature and an eg regi ou s Fo u rth A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n .” D efe ndant ’ s ar gum enti s l ong on rhet or i c and s hor ton l aw . A pr operfocus r equi r es
u s firstt o as k w hetherD efe ndantw as l aw ful l ydet ai ned atthe t i m e of A gentC hard’s q u e stio n in g . If

so , D e f e n d a n t w a s re a so n a b lyse ize d a t th e tim e o f s u c h q u e stio n in g in
c o m p lian c e w ith th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, a n d a n y a rg u m e n t D e f e n d a n t m ig h t m a k e to
s up p r e s s h i s i d e n t i tyb a s e d o n a n u n l a wfu l d e t e n t i o n mus tf a i l
. Comp a r e Uni t e d St a t e s v. O liv a re s-R a n g e l, 45 8 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 ( 1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (a d d re ss in g th e su p p re ss io n o f id e n tity evi dence ar i s i ng fr om an unl aw ful arr es t )
. I m por t ant l y , D efe ndanthas notas s ert ed, ei therD e f e n d a n t’ s b a ld a s s e rt io n th a t h e w a s th e s u b je c t o f ra c ia l p ro f

ilin g is m e ri tle s s . 1 A d e f e n d a n t ra isin g su c h c laim
m us tpr es entevi dence fr om w hi ch a j urycoul d r eas onabl yi nferthatthe l aw enfo rcem ent offi ci al s i nv olved w ere m oti vated bya dis cri m i natorypu rpose a n d th e i ra c t i o n s h a d a d i s c r i m i n a t o ry e f f e c t . T o s a t i s f

y th e d i s c r i m i n a t o rye f f e c t ele m e n t, on e w h o c laim s s e lec tiv e e n f o rc e m e n t m u st m a k e a c re d ib le s how i ng thata s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat ed i ndi vi dual of anotherr ace coul d have been, butw as not , s t opped orarr es t ed forthe off ens e forw hi ch the defe ndantw as s t opped orarr es t ed. A nd the di s cr i m i nat ory - purpos e el ement r equi r es a s how i ng thatdi s cr i m i nat oryi nt entw as a mot i vat i ng fac t ori n the d e c isio n to e n f

o rc e th e c rim in a l law a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t. U ni t ed St at es v. A l car az- A r el l ano, 441 F. 3d 1252, 1264 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons , br acke t s , and el l i ps es om i t t ed)
. I n thi s cas e, D efe ndanthas m ade no s how i ng w hats oev er of dis cri m i natoryeffect orpu rpose on the p artof law enfo rcem ent offi cers . 6 i n hi s br i ef or at or al ar gum ent , thatO ffi cerM i l l erl acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o det ai n hi m bas ed on hi s fai l ur e t o pos s es s a val i d dr i ver ’ s l i cens e or i nabi l i ty t o i dent i fy hi m s el f as s om eone otherthan the “J uan G ar ci a” w ant ed on the out s t andi ng w arr ant . R ather , D efe ndantfocus es excl us i vel yon l aw enfor cement ’ s purpor t ed l ack of pr obabl e caus e t o s u sp ecthe w as an i l l egal i m m i gr ant . A nyotherr eas on o ffer ed forhi s det ent i on, D efe ndants ugges t s , w as
m erel ya pret ext for i nv est i gati ng his i m m i grat i on st atus. 1 U nfor tunat el yforD efe ndant , an off i cer ’ s “s ubj ect i ve m ot i vat i on i s i rr el evant ” t o the ques t i on of w hethera part i cul ars ei zur e w as r eas onabl e: “A n act i on i s ‘ r ea so n ab l e’ under the Four th A m endment , r egar dl es s of the i ndi vi dual officer’s st at e of mi nd, as l ong as t he ci r cumst ance s , vi ew ed o b jec tive ly , jus tifyth e a c tio n .” B rig h a m C ityv . S tu a rt, 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 9 4 3 , 1 9 4 8 (2 0 0 6 ) (re

jec tin g th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e re a so n a b len e ss o f a w a rra n tles s e n tryin to a home turns upon the off i cer ’ s s ubj ect i ve mot i vat i on for ent er i ng) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons andIn C o u n tyo f R iverside v . M cL au g h li n , 5 0 0 U
. S
. 4 4 , 5 5 -58 (19 9 1 ), the C o u rt 2 d ec ided that a su sp ec t held o n p rob ab le ca u se g en era ll ym ayb e d etaine d u p to 4 8 h o u rs p rio r to a d e tac h e d m a g istra te’ s p ro b a b le c a u se d e ter m in a tio n . D e f e n d a n t’s d e ten tio n in thi s cas e di d notcome cl os e t o appr oachi ng the 48- hourdeadl i ne. 7 br acke t s om i t t ed)
. A s i de fr om the di s tr i ct court ’ s concl us i on thatpr obabl e ca us e t o s us pect
cr i m i nal act i vi tyar os e fr om D efe ndant ’ s l i kenes s t o the “ Ju an G arc i a” w ant ed on an
ou t st and i ng w arr ant, the co urt ’s ho l ding t hat O ffi cer M i l l er had p robable cause t o arr est D e f e n d a n t f o r f a ilu re to p o ss e ss a v a lid d riv e r’s lice n se w a s q u ite e n o u g h to ju stif yh is det ent i on at the pol i ce s t at i on. W e expl ai ned i n U ni t ed St at es v. Sant ana- G ar ci a, 264 F. 3d 1 1 8 8 , 11 92 (10t h C i r. 20 01 ), that “[u]nd er U t ah l aw , op erat i ng a veh i cl e w i tho ut a v a lid dr i ver ’ s l i cens e i s a C l as s C m i s demeanor
. U t ah C ode A nn. § 53- 2- 202. U t ah l aw author i zes
a rr e s t f o r t h e c o m m is s io n o f

a C la s s C m is d e m e a n o r. I d . § 7 7 -7 -2 .” I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, D efe ndantacknow l edges the s ame bys t at i ng O ffi cerM i l l er“had the author i ty under U t ah l aw t o arr es t M r . L ar a- G ar ci a for a tr aff i c vi ol at i on outr i ght , w i thout
a nee d t o i dent i fyw ho he w as . ” Thus, atthe t i m e A gentC har d ques t i oned D efe ndantabout h is im m ig ra tio n sta tu s, D e f e n d a n t w a s d e tain e d a t th e p o lice sta tio n b a se d o n a n o b jec tiv e ly
re a so n a b le b e lief h e h a d v io late d th e law
. T h a t is a ll th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t re q u ire s to 2 ju stif yD e f e n d a n t’s d e ten tio n . A g e n t C h a rd d id n o t n e e d a se c o n d , ind e p e n d e n t b a sis to det ai n D efe ndant , and di d notneed pro b ab le c au s e t o bel i eve he w as an i l l egal i m m i gr ant p r i o rt o q u e s t i o n i n g h i m. B. T he more di ffi cul tqueryi n t hi s cas e i s w hetherthe Fi fth A m endmentr equi r ed A gentU n d o u b ted ly , w h e re a su sp e c t su c h a s D e f e n d a n t is d e tain e d b a se d o n p ro b a b le 3 caus e thathe mayhave c om m i t t ed a c r i m e, a l aw enfor cementoffi ci al m ayas k the s us pectt o i dent i fyhi m s el f w i thoutpr ovi di ng a Mi r anda w a rn in g . “Q u e stio n s a b o u t a p e rso n ’s id e n titya re n o t u n c o n stitu tio n a l ev e n if id e n tific a tio n o f

th e p e rso n m a yh e lp l ead t o the pr os ecut i on of thatper s on fora cr i m e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. W as hi ngt on, 462 F. 3d 1124, 1133 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( ques t i on abouta s us pect ’ s “gang moni ker ” di d not r equi r e a Mi r anda w arni ng)
. W e have pr evi ous l yr ecogni zed “ the di s cl os ur e of na m e and addr es s i s es s ent i al l ya neutr al actand i tw oul d be the extr avaga ntext ens i on of the pr i vi l ege . . . t o hol d t hati ti s t es t i m oni al i n the Fi fth A m endments ens e. ” U ni t ed St at es v . M c C u rd y , 4 0 F .3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d b ra c k e ts om i t t ed)
. Fur therm or e, ques t i ons as t o dat e and pl ace of bi r th ar e norm al ques t i ons att endantt o arr es tand cus t odyand do notr equi r e a Mi r anda w arni ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. A r el l ano- O choa, 461 F. 3d 1142, 1146 ( 9th C i r . 2006)
. T hus , A gentC har d’ s ques t i ons as t o D efe ndant ’ s name and bi r th i nform at i on di d notr equi r e a Mi r anda w arni ng. 8 C har d t o pr ovi de D efe ndanta Mi r anda w a rn in g b e f o re q u e stio n in g h im a b o u t h is i mmi g r a t i o n s t a tu s . Se e Hi i b e l v . Si x th J u d i c i a l Di s t . Cou r t , 5 4 2 U. S. 1 7 7 , 1 8 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ To q u a lify f

o r th e F if

th A m e n d m e n t p riv ileg e , a c o m m u n ica tio n m u s t b e te stim o n ial, i ncr i m i nat i ng, and compel l ed. ”)
. T hat i s a quest i on, how ever , w e need notans w er . E ven 3
as s um i ng the d istri ct c o u rt w as co rrect i n h o lding the a g en t’ s q u esti o n v iolated D ef en d an t’ s F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t, th e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e w h ic h a ro s e f ro m s u c h v io la tio n , i
. e. , D efe ndant ’ s fi ngerpr i nt s and i m m i gr at i on fi l e, i s nots uppr es s i bl e. In U n ite d S tat es v . P atan e, 54 2 U
. S
. 6 3 0 (20 0 4 ) (plura li ty ), the S u p rem e C o u rt
c o n c lu d e d th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le o r “ f ru it o f th e p o iso n o u s tre e d o c trin e ” d o e s n o t ap p ly“ to
m er e fai l ur es t o gi ve Mi r anda w a rn in g s[ .]” Id
. a t 6 4 3
. R e ly in g o n P a tan e , w e su b se q u e n tly hel d i n U n i t ed St at es v. Phi l l i ps , 468 F. 3d 1264, 1265 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , thatphy s i cal
e v id e n c e o b ta in e d a s a f ru it o f a d e f e n d a n t’ s v o lu n ta ry, i
. e. uncoer ced, s t at ementt o a pol i ce
o f f ice r is a d m iss ib le a t trial “ re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r th e o f

f ice r g a v e th e d e f

e n d a n t Mi r andaA s to h is 2 4 m o n th se n ten c e , D e f e n d a n t su g g e sts th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in 4 decl i ni ng t o departdow nw ar d fr om the gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on A gentC har d’ s al l eged Mi r anda v io latio n . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt re c o g n ize d its a u th o rityto g ra n t a dow nw ar d departur e atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew i t s deci s i on t o denyD efe ndant ’ s m ot i on fors uch depa r tur e. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fonse ca, 473 F. 3d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 1 -11 1 5 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (“T h is co u rtm ayrev iew a d en ial o f a d o w n w ard departur e onl yi f the deni al i s bas ed on the s ent enci ng court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes as depr i vi ng i tof the l egal author i tyt o gr antthe depa r tur e. ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. W as hburn, 383 F. 3d 638, 644 ( 7th C i r . 2004) ( expr es s i ng “s er i ous doubt s about w hetherpol i ce mi s conductthatdi d nothave a nyeff ecton the natur e of the off ens e ort he ind ividu al of

fe n d er w o u ld ev er b e a p erm issi b le gro u n d fo r de p arture” ). 9 w arni ngs . ” I n Phi l l l i ps , pol i ce r ecove r ed a gun and j acke tw i th bl ood on i tnearthe s cene of a robbe ry . I n r es pons e t o an offi cer ’ s i nqui ry about hi s l i m p, defe ndant s t at ed he had bee n
s hot
. D efe ndantdi d notr ece i ve a Mi r a nda w arn ing pr i ort o the off i cer ’ s ques t i on. T he offi cerpr epar ed an a ffi davi tfora s ear ch w arr antbas ed on def endant ’ s res pons e. T he
w a rra n t so u g h t a sw a b o f d e f e n d a n t’s D N A so law e n f o rc e m e n t co u ld c o m p a re h is D N A to thatof the bl ood found on the j acke t . A m at ch w as m ade. W e h el d the D N A evi dence admi s s i bl e des pi t e the l ack of a Mi r anda w a rn in g . P h ill ip s, 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 5 -6 6 . T h is is b ec au s e “the Mi r anda rul e pr ot ect s agai ns tvi ol at i ons of the Sel f- I ncr i m i nat i on C l aus e,
w hi ch, i n turn, i s noti m pl i cat ed byth e intr o d u cti on attr i al of phy s i cal evi dence r es ul t i ng fr om vol unt arys t at ement s [. ] ” Pat ane, 542 U
. S. at634. III
. A ccor di ngl y , D efe ndant ’ s i dent i ty and s t atus as an i l l egal i m m i gr antas r evea l ed by h is fing erp ri n ts an d im m igrati o n fil e is n o t su p p ressible. T h e j u d g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt i s – AF F I RMED
. 4