Opinion ID: 173713
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incriminating Admissions

Text: The district court concluded that defendant understood enough English to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. Defendant contends -8- that the court erred in evaluating his ability to understand English and, therefore, that the waiver was not knowing and intelligent. “The validity of a defendant’s waiver of his or her Fifth Amendment rights is reviewed de novo with the underlying facts reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Morris, 287 F.3d 985, 988 (10th Cir. 2002). A waiver of Miranda rights must be made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. “‘[T]he relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). And “the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Id. Defendant does not challenge voluntariness, instead focusing on the court’s finding regarding his English proficiency and the conclusion that the waiver was knowing and intelligent. “Whether [defendant] understood his Miranda rights is a question of fact, which underlies the legal question of whether his waiver was knowing and intelligent.” Valdez v. Ward, 219 F.3d 1222, 1231 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Having independently reviewed the record, including the recording of the traffic stop, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that defendant understood sufficient English to understand the Miranda warnings. Defendant generally responded appropriately to Garrison’s questioning during the -9- traffic stop. He asked Garrison if there would be a Spanish-speaker at the station, and was told that there would, but he never asked for a translator when he was at the station. When it appeared that defendant might be having some difficulty understanding the warnings given at the station, Nallin asked him in Spanish if he understood, and he responded that he did. Further, defendant conversed with officers in English during a search of his trailer. These facts support the district court’s finding. See id. (defendant appropriately responded to questioning); United States v. Lugo, 170 F.3d 996, 1004 (10th Cir. 1999) (“Although it would have been preferable to give [defendant] a Miranda warning in Spanish, the record indicates that [defendant] indicated to [the officer] that he understood those rights as they were being read to him in English, and responded to all questions in English.”); United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819, 826 (10th Cir. 1997) (defendant spoke to troopers in English). Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent.