Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcfarland-7
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:20:47+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ARTRAE D. MCFARLAND, Defendant.
This matter is currently before the Court on defendant McFarland's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (doc #21). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that this motion be granted in part and denied in part.
On September 3, 2013, the Grand Jury returned a one count indictment against defendant Artrae D. McFarland. The indictment charges that on April 1, 2013, defendant McFarland, having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, possessed a firearm, to wit: a Hi-Point, Model CF, .380 caliber handgun, which had been transported in interstate commerce.
On June 25, 2014, an evidentiary hearing was held on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant McFarland was represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Anita L. Burns. The Government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney D. Michael Green. The Government called Officer Chris Onik of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department as a witness. The defense called no witnesses to testify.
privilege also protects a person that is in custody from being coerced by the police into making any statements. Because custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, the police must advise a person of certain rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning, and obtain a valid waiver of such rights before interrogating a suspect. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1996). The government may not use at trial any statements made by a suspect unless the police comply with the procedural safeguards of Miranda. In Mr. McFarland's case, the officers did not advise him of his Miranda rights at the scene of the car stop even though Mr. McFarland was placed in handcuffs for his outstanding KCMO warrants. The incriminating statement by Mr. McFarland at the scene of the car stop including a statement that he had blunts and a gun in the car, that he bought the gun a few days ago from a guy, and that he had a burglary conviction from Louisiana must be suppressed as the statement was made prior to receiving a Miranda warning.
The government responds that defendant's statement about having marijuana in the vehicle was a voluntary non-custodial admission and that defendant's later custodial statements at the scene concerning the gun were the result of Officer Onik's questioning him about items in the vehicle which posed a risk to the officers and, as such, fell within the public safety exception to Miranda. (Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (doc #24) at 3-4) The government did not address the statement regarding defendant's burglary conviction in its briefing.
The Court will examine each statement that defendant seeks to suppress.
"The basic rule of Miranda is that an individual must be advised of the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination, and the right to the assistance of an attorney, any time a person is taken into custody for questioning." United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1347 (8th Cir. 1990). The Griffin court set out three factors which mitigate against the existence of custody at the time of questioning: (1) the suspect was informed that he was not considered under arrest; (2) the suspect possessed unrestrained freedom of movement; and (3) whether the suspect initiated contact with authorities or voluntarily acquiesced to official requests to respond to questions. Id. at 1349. All three mitigating factors were present here. Clearly, no Miranda warnings were required prior to defendant McFarland's pre-arrest statements regarding the blunts in the car since McFarland was not being interrogated while in custody when the statements were made. In fact, defendant McFarland initiated the conversation about the blunts with Officer Onik after Onik had advised McFarland that he was not under arrest. Officer Onik's follow-up question as to how much marijuana was in the car only sought the information which was necessary for Onik to respond to McFarland's question. See United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 445 (8th Cir. 2005)("An officer's request for clarification of a spontaneous statement generally does not constitute interrogation.") There is no basis for suppression of defendant's statements regarding blunts in the car.
The law is clear that there is a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given prior to custodial questioning when police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety, which includes protection of the police officers themselves. See United States v. Liddell, 517 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1045 (2008). "[T]he risk of police officers being injured by the mishandling of unknown firearms ... provides a sufficient public safety basis to ask a suspect who has been arrested and secured whether there are weapons ... in a car ... that the police are about to search." Id. at 1009-10. Officer Onik's questions were reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. There is no basis for suppression of defendant's statements regarding the presence and location of the gun in the car.
At this point, defendant McFarland is physically restrained and the officers know that McFarland has outstanding warrants. (See Fact Nos. 3 and 8, supra) Officer Onik has been told by defendant McFarland that there is marijuana and a gun in the car. (See Fact Nos. 7 and 9, supra) Officer Onik testified that he questioned McFarland about paperwork for the gun because if McFarland possessed it legally it "would have necessitated a different course of action" than if he possessed it illegally. (See Fact No. 9, supra) Officer Onik also testified that defendant McFarland was acting as if "something more was going on" than two marijuana cigarettes in the car. (Id.) The Court finds that Officer Onik asked defendant McFarland a question that was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to questioning that the police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01 (1980). The Court finds that although defendant McFarland had not yet been told that he was under arrest, his freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with arrest and the question posed to him about paperwork for the gun amounted to custodial interrogation. Contrary to the government's argument, there was no public safety basis for asking defendant about his ownership of the gun. Defendant's statement regarding his purchase of the gun must be suppressed.
"It is settled that the safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest." United States v. Pelayo-Ruelas, 345 F.3d 589, 592 (8th Cir. 2003)(quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)).
This ruling does not prevent the government from presenting independently obtained evidence of defendant McFarland's prior felony conviction.
RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order granting in part and denying in part defendant McFarland's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (doc #21). As set forth above, defendant is no longer seeking the suppression of evidence or the statement he made after he received Miranda warnings. Thus, these portions of defendant's motion should be denied as moot. As for those statements that defendant is still seeking suppression, that is the statements that were made at the scene of the arrest, the Court recommends granting suppression of defendant's statement regarding his purchase of the gun and statement regarding his burglary conviction and denying suppression of defendant's statements regarding the blunts in the car and statements regarding the presence of the gun in the car and its location.
Counsel are reminded they have fourteen days after being served a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file and serve objections to same. A failure to file and serve objections by this date shall bar an attack on appeal of the factual findings in this Report and Recommendation which are accepted or adopted by the district judge, except on the grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.