Opinion ID: 665566
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to Thigpen's Detention

Text: 47 Thigpen argues that his confession was not voluntary. His discussion of the factors listed in Sec. 3501(b), however, is misleading. Although he was informed of his Miranda rights before giving his confession, he argues that his earlier, non-Mirandized questioning somehow tainted the confession. LAPD detective Caballero's affidavit, however, indicates that the earlier questioning had nothing to do with his current drug-related arrest, and indeed that Thigpen professed to know nothing about the assault on the paramedics, the subject of the earlier questioning. Thigpen does not allege that anything he said that morning incriminated him, and he makes no plausible argument that his later confession was somehow the tainted fruit of the earlier questioning. In cases in which an earlier separate interrogation has been held to have an effect on the voluntariness of a later confession, both interrogations were about the same crime. Wilson, 838 F.2d at 1083; United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1401-02, 1407 (9th Cir.1985). 48 Second, Thigpen contends he did not know the nature of the offense with which he was charged or ... suspected of, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501(b)(2), because, although aware of the possible drug charges he was not aware that a firearm possession charge might also be brought. This argument, which would only establish a partial ignorance in any case, is not plausible. Martin claimed to have purchased cocaine from Thigpen and Ross when a gun was in plain view. The numerous guns recovered from both the house and the apartment indicate that guns were a part of the operation in which Thigpen participated. A firearm possession charge, in this situation, was hardly unforeseeable. 49 The factor which weighs most in Thigpen's favor is the delay between his arrest and arraignment--a total of more than 48 hours. His confession, however, came only two and one-half hours after the six-hour safe harbor established under the statute. The time he spent in custody post-confession and pre-arraignment is not relevant to the voluntariness of his confession. Halbert, 436 F.2d at 1237 (the delay after the confession and before his federal arraignment obviously had no effect on the prior confession and would not render it inadmissible). The two and one-half extra hours, while a factor weighing in favor of finding an involuntary confession, is a weak one in the absence of evidence that he was somehow worn down or otherwise intimidated during this period. E.g., Wilson, 838 F.2d at 1086 (interrogator used skillful psychological techniques on defendant); Fouche, 776 F.2d at 1407 (defendant questioned in oppressive environment of police car). 50 Thigpen does not allege that he was intimidated or coerced to confess, and the record does not give rise to any suspicion on that account. In the absence of such allegations, and because the statutory factors listed in Sec. 3501(b) weigh in favor of it, we find that the district court did not err in finding the confession voluntary. 51 Nor do we find the delay preceding Thigpen's confession unnecessary or unreasonable. In this regard, the central issue is whether the primary purpose in detaining the appellant was to allow federal officers to interrogate him. Cote, 357 F.2d at 793-94. In Wilson, this court suppressed a confession because, among other things, arraignment was delayed so that federal officers could complete an interrogation, despite the fact that a magistrate was available in the same building to conduct the arraignment. 838 F.2d at 1085; see Alvarez-Sanchez, 975 F.2d at 1405 (delay was for sole purpose of interrogating the arrestee). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court, in examining pre-arraignment delay under the Fourth Amendment, has said 52 Examples of unreasonable delay are delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay's sake. 53 County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 1670 (1991). 5 54 Here, however, the government argues that Thigpen's arraignment was delayed because of the time it took to search the two properties and to process the evidence recovered from them. The government claims that by the time Thigpen was transferred to ATF custody, the magistrate was no longer available to perform arraignments. It does not appear from the record that the ATF agents had any ulterior motive in waiting until 5:30 p.m. to question Thigpen. Delays for appropriate reasons should not be held unnecessary or unreasonable. E.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3501(c) (six-hour period will be extended if travel difficulties exist); United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 914 (9th Cir.1983) (overnight delay not unreasonable where suspect was drunk upon arrest and was allowed to sleep and eat before being questioned). 55 Thigpen, unlike those defendants who have successfully moved to suppress confessions due to delay, has shown neither that the eight and one-half hours prior to his confession was a delay designed to elicit the confession (or to accomplish any other improper motive), nor that the eight and one-half hours in any way affected the actual voluntariness of his confession. 56 Thigpen was kept in federal custody for more than 40 hours after his confession before being arraigned. While this period had no effect on the voluntariness of a confession already given, it certainly relates to the other interests enshrined in Sec. 3501 and Rule 5(a)--specifically judicial supervision from the earliest possible point in a criminal proceeding. In this regard, suppression of a confession can be a prophylactic measure designed to be a disincentive for unnecessary police delay in bringing a suspect to arraignment. 57 Because we find no evidence of purposeful police misconduct in causing the delay, however, suppression would be an unnecessarily harsh penalty for a delay which cannot fairly be called prejudicial to the defendant. A similar conclusion applies to Thigpen's argument that his indictment should be dismissed on account of the delay. In the one case he cites dealing with police delay, United States v. Jernigan, 582 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 991 (1978), the court found that the arresting officer had waited to arrest a suspect specifically so that the defendant would have to spend a long weekend in jail. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit only issued a warning, however, suggesting that repetition might lead to dismissal of indictments in future. Id. at 1214. In Thigpen's case, we find no evidence of deliberate misconduct.