Opinion ID: 2982675
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statement made following discovery of the gun

Text: Defendant argues that his statement about the gun following its discovery by the police should have been suppressed either (1) because it was fruit of the poisonous tree, or (2) because it was given in response to interrogation or the functional equivalent of such questioning. His first argument fails because, since there was no illegal search, there could be no “poisonous tree” from which the statement could have derived. His second argument fails because, as the district court found, Defendant was not being interrogated when he spontaneously said the gun was his. It is well-settled that statements volunteered by a defendant while in custody are not implicated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In Miranda itself, the Supreme Court held that “[v]olunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.” Id. at 478. “[T]he special procedural safeguards outlined in Miranda are required not where a suspect is simply taken into custody, but rather where a suspect in custody is subjected to interrogation.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980); see also United States v. Montano, 613 F.2d 147, 149 (6th Cir. 1980). In United States v. Murphy, the defendant made statements while in custody in a police car without being questioned by any officers. 107 F.3d 1199, 1204–05 (6th Cir. 1997). Even though the defendant had not been provided Miranda warnings, this Court held that the statements were admissible because they were voluntarily made in the absence of any questioning. Id. The case at hand presents a similar situation. Defendant saw the officers leave his house carrying his gun and simply blurted out that the gun was his. The district court found that Defendant presented no evidence at the hearing that would contradict the officers’ testimony on 8 No. 13-5558 this point. Viewing the record in its entirety, in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that it supports the district court’s findings.