Opinion ID: 2810874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Suppress (Susanne Zar)

Text: Before trial, the Zars jointly moved to suppress statements they made to IRS agents Mike Garvey and Beverly Hood during an in-home interview. Following a hearing, the district court concluded the interview was not a custodial interrogation and denied the suppression motion. Only Susanne Zar appeals that denial, challenging two of the district court’s factual findings and its ultimate conclusion that the in-home interview was not a custodial interrogation. When considering a district court’s suppression ruling, we review the court’s factual findings for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Garcia, 751 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Revels, 510 F.3d 1269, 1273 (10th Cir. 2007). Clear-error review “ask[s] whether, on the entire evidence, [the appellate court] is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Statements obtained during a custodial interrogation cannot be used against a defendant unless the government demonstrates the defendant was properly informed 14 of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). See United States v. Chee, 514 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2008). A person is in custody when her “freedom of action is curtailed to a ‘degree associated with formal arrest.’” United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam)). Courts consider several factors to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have understood her situation as one akin to formal arrest. United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2008). Those factors include (1) whether the suspect was aware that she could refrain from answering questions or end the interview at will, (2) whether the questioning was prolonged and accusatory, and (3) whether the questioning took place in a policedominated atmosphere. Id. at 1240. Following a hearing, the district court denied the Zars’ suppression motion, concluding the Zars were not subject to a custodial interrogation. The court reasoned, There are two aspects—well, actually three aspects that are troublesome. The first is that the questioning went on for a period of three hours. The second is that the agents failed to advise that this was a consensual conversation. And the third is that the agents failed at any point to advise the interviewees that they had a right to seek counsel. None of these factors are dispositive, and they are outweighed, in my view, by all of the other aspects of the interrogation which reflect a consensual conversation: The agents approached the house, requested an opportunity to enter. When [Derek] Zar answered the door, he was advised of their credentials and their purpose of being there. He closed the door. At that point, he knew he did not have to talk to them. When he reopened the door, he chose to talk to them. And although I would agree with some courts that have observed the failure to reaffirm that this was a consensual conversation is probably not 15 good practice on the part of the investigating agents, it doesn’t change the fact that Mr. Zar invited them into the house after he had previously closed the door to evaluate the situation. One of the implications that’s been raised in the questioning is that the Zars were unacquainted or uninformed or ill-equipped to deal with two law enforcement officers. There is no evidence to support that. The inquiry with regard to Mr. Zar and his formal education reveals that the agent knew that he had not completed high school and, although he was 28 years old, he did not have a GED. Any concerns about that, however, I believe are relieved by the fact that his mother was present during the entirety of the interview, and there has been no information as to her inability to perceive or be familiar with what was going on during the interview. Applying the objective standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I find that a reasonable person would have felt that he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and to ask the agents to leave. Hr’g Tr., Oct. 18, 2011, Doc. 279, at 64-66.
Susanne Zar challenges two of the district court’s factual findings as clearly erroneous. First, she argues the district court’s finding that Derek Zar “knew he did not have to talk to” agents before he reopened the door is not supported by Agent Garvey’s testimony which provided, in relevant part, We knocked on the door. Derek Zar answered the door. I identified myself as a special agent with IRS and showed him my credentials. Agent Hood also showed Derek Zar her credentials. I told him I wanted to ask him some questions about the homes that he purchased with Mike Jacoby. He said to give him a minute, and he closed the door. A few minutes later, he opened the door and let us in. Hr’g Tr., Oct. 18, 2011, Doc. 279, at 10. Garvey later testified he never directly informed either Derek Zar or Susanne Zar that they could refuse to talk to the agents or otherwise terminate the 16 conversation. But Susanne Zar’s contention that Garvey’s testimony does not support the district court’s finding overlooks the district court’s ability to make reasonable inferences from the evidence. See United States v. Mabry, 728 F.3d 1163, 1166 (10th Cir. 2013) (“‘The credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given to evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence fall within the province of the district court.’” (quoting United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004))). Because the district court’s finding that Derek Zar knew he did not have to talk to the agents can reasonably be inferred from Garvey’s testimony, we conclude that finding is not clearly erroneous. Moreover, even if not supported by the evidence, the district court’s finding that Derek Zar knew he could refuse to talk to agents was not material to its decision. Subjective knowledge is both generally irrelevant and specifically irrelevant to the question now before us—whether a reasonable person in Susanne Zar’s position would have understood her situation to be akin to a formal arrest. See United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499, 1505 (10th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (“[T]he particular personal traits or subjective state of mind of the defendant are irrelevant to the objective ‘reasonable person’ test . . . ‘other than to the extent that they may have been known to the officer and influenced his conduct.’” (citations omitted)). Next, Susanne Zar argues the district court clearly erred in finding that, “[a]t the Zars’ invitation, they sat at the kitchen table and they conversed for a period of three hours.” She points to the lack of any evidence that she invited the agents into her home or to her kitchen table, or that she consented to the three-hour interrogation. 17 It is true that Garvey did not directly testify that either of the Zars invited him to the kitchen table. Instead, he testified that after Derek Zar invited him inside, he saw Susanne Zar “near the staircase,” that he and another agent introduced themselves to her, and they “proceeded over to the kitchen table.” Initially, we don’t read the district court’s finding as indicating that Susanne Zar personally invited the agents to talk for three hours, only that she implicitly invited them to sit at the kitchen table where they conversed for three hours. Regardless, because either interpretation of the district court’s finding can be inferred from Garvey’s testimony, that finding is not clearly erroneous.
Like the district court, we are troubled by the agents’ failure to advise the Zars that the interview was a consensual conversation. But the agents were not required to do so, and as the district court noted, this factor alone did not transform the in-home interview into a custodial interrogation. Rather, as the district court concluded, under the totality of the circumstances the Zars were not in custody during the interview. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s denial of the suppression motion.