Opinion ID: 3064488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion to Suppress Statements — Pre-Arrest

Text: Brobst claims that he was “in custody” when he made his initial statements to the officers at his home, and that the district court therefore erred in denying his motion to suppress. We review de novo the district court’s decision to admit or suppress statements that may have been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 393 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2005). Whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Hayden, 260 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2001). The factual findings 2854 UNITED STATES v. BROBST underlying the district court’s decision, however, are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). [10] “[I]n-custody determinations must be based on the totality of the circumstances and are reviewed according to whether a reasonable person in such circumstances would conclude after brief questioning that he or she would not be free to leave.” Hayden, 260 F.3d at 1066 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “Factors relevant to whether an accused is ‘in custody’ include the following: (1) the language used to summon the individual; (2) the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of guilt; (3) the physical surroundings of the interrogation; (4) the duration of the detention; and (5) the degree of pressure applied to detain the individual.” Id. [11] The nature of the language used to summon Brobst weighs in favor of a conclusion that Brobst was in custody. Uniformed and armed Deputy Ewers approached Brobst when Brobst first came to his own home. Deputy Ewers then stated, “you need to come with me” or words to that effect. This statement is a command or a show of force. [12] When Brobst entered the kitchen, Detective Yonkin provided Brobst with a copy of the search warrant. Detective Yonkin then told Brobst that they had located child pornography in the house. Detective Yonkin questioned Brobst about the pornography. Because (1) Brobst was immediately confronted with evidence of the child pornography against him and (2) the manner in which he was confronted, these facts weigh in favor of finding Brobst was in custody. [13] The physical surroundings of the interrogation weigh in favor of finding Brobst was in custody. We have held that detention in one’s residence (not isolated, unfamiliar surroundings) may militate against a determination of custody. See generally United States v. Gregory, 891 F.2d 732, 735 UNITED STATES v. BROBST 2855 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Eide, 875 F.2d 1429, 1437 (9th Cir. 1989) (all indicating that interrogations occurring at a defendant’s residence are a factor in finding a defendant is not in custody). All of these cases, however, are distinguishable, because the officers were not in the residence when the defendant arrived. Other circuits rely upon the degree to which law enforcement officers dominated the scene. See United States v. Ritchie, 35 F.3d 1477, 1485 (10th Cir. 1994) (“[C]ourts are much less likely to find the circumstances custodial when the interrogation occurs in familiar or at least neutral surroundings, such as the suspect’s home.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v. MittelCarey, 493 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2007) ( “While an interrogation in a defendant’s residence, without more, certainly weighs against a finding of custody, . . . the level of physical control the agents exercised . . . weighs heavily in the opposite direction . . . .”); Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir. 1996) ( “More important than the familiarity of the surroundings where [the defendant] was being held is the degree to which the police dominated the scene.”); United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1354-55 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Questioning which occurs in the suspect’s own home may provide a margin of comfort, but . . . the setting of the interrogation is not so important to the inquiry as the question of police domination of that setting.”); but see Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326-27 (1969) (holding that a suspect within his own residence was in custody for Miranda purposes). Here, the officers entered Brobst’s residence, in Brobst’s absence, through an open window. When Brobst arrived at his residence, three officers were already there. Two of the officers were searching the inside of the residence, and Deputy Ewers was outside the residence, waiting, in part, for Brobst’s return. Immediately upon Brobst’s arrival, Deputy Ewers approached Brobst and told Brobst to follow him. The short duration of the interrogation weighs against finding Brobst was in custody. See Gregory, 891 F.2d at 735 (finding defendant was not in custody, in part, because the 2856 UNITED STATES v. BROBST entire interview lasted only a few minutes). The district court found that Brobst was questioned for “two minutes or so.” Only ten to fifteen minutes elapsed from the time Brobst arrived at his home to the time when he was placed under arrest. Lastly, the degree of pressure applied to detain Brobst weighs against finding that Brobst was in custody. Brobst was neither handcuffed nor told that he was under arrest. Brobst argues that “the three armed officers positioned themselves as to prevent Brobst from leaving.” The district court found that the officers did not position themselves to prevent Brobst from leaving, but rather found that two officers were a normal conversational distance from Brobst, and Deputy Ewers was some feet away during the interrogation. There is no clear error in the district court’s factual findings. Even if the officers did position themselves to prevent Brobst from leaving, it was reasonable under these circumstances to take steps to insure their safety. See United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Strong but reasonable measures to insure the safety of the officers or the public can be taken without necessarily compelling a finding that the suspect was in custody.”); United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting locking doors and restricting the occupants’ movement are often reasonable police procedures to control access to a scene during the execution of a search warrant). [14] Based upon the totality of the circumstances, and after applying the five relevant factors, we find that a reasonable person in such circumstances would conclude that he would not be free to leave. Thus, we hold that the district court erred in holding that Brobst was not in custody. [15] Even though the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress, we will sustain the denial if the error was harmless. See United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that admission of evidence obtained UNITED STATES v. BROBST 2857 in violation of Miranda is subject to a harmless error analysis). Although Brobst’s statement made at his residence should have been suppressed, the child pornographic materials produced as a result of the search and Brobst’s separate post-Miranda statements admitting to possession of the materials were not “tainted” and were properly admitted by the district court. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 309 (1985). Because Brobst’s convictions were based upon more than his “in custody” statement, we hold that it was harmless error for the district court to admit Brobst’s statement made in violation of his Miranda rights.