Opinion ID: 2977642
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: motion to suppress statements made

Text: DURING EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT Abrar appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to Special Agent Morgan during the execution of a search warrant at his home, statements giving rise to a later criminal charge for lying to a federal agent. Abrar proceeds on the theory that he was “in custody” and therefore required warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The district court held a pretrial hearing on the motion. Special Agent Morgan testified for the government. Short of cross-examination of Special Agent Morgan, Abrar offered nothing in response. On the stand, Special Agent Morgan described the execution of the search warrant and the interview as follows. Approximately twelve FBI agents arrived at Abrar’s home to execute the warrant. Following 7 standard protocol, the entry team wore raid jackets, bulletproof vests, and had their weapons drawn; however, the weapons were holstered and the raid clothing was removed once the house was secured. Special Agent Morgan was not part of the entry team, instead arriving later, dressed in a business suit with his weapon hidden. He explained the warrant to Abrar and asked him if they could talk. Abrar agreed and the two spoke in a sitting area near the front entrance of the home. During the interview, Abrar was not handcuffed, his movement was not restricted, and nothing was recorded. Abrar was initially nervous, but later grew relaxed. The interview was interrupted at multiple points by agents executing the warrant. After each interruption, Special Agent Morgan asked Abrar if he wished to continue and, each time, Abrar agreed. In all, the interview lasted about forty-five minutes to an hour. At no point did Abrar seek to end the discussion or ask for a lawyer. On these facts, and in the absence of any countervailing evidence presented by the defense, the district court denied Abrar’s motion to suppress. Ruling from the bench, the court explained: I wouldn’t even characterize it as an interrogation. And [Abrar] was not in custody at the time, there is no evidence that he was in custody, at all, and there is no evidence that he did anything other than voluntarily have a discussion with the agents when they were executing the search warrant. So at least from the evidence I have before me at this time, there is no reason to suppress any statement he made at that time. Suppression Tr. at 128-29. We agree that Abrar was not in custody and that his statements should not be suppressed.