Opinion ID: 183063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hambrick's Incriminating Statement to Officers

Text: Finally, Hambrick challenges the district court's refusal to suppress an incriminating statement he provided to the officers. Hambrick asserts his confession should be suppressed because it was derived from an illegal stop and arrest. He also challenges the voluntariness of his statement, claiming that his limited ability to read and write affected his understanding of the Miranda warnings. In determining whether a defendant's statement is voluntary, we examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. United States v. Ingle, 157 F.3d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1998). The test for determining the voluntariness of a confession `is whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, pressures exerted upon the suspect have overborne his will.' United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 776 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Jorgensen, 871 F.2d 725, 729 (8th Cir. 1989)). Those potential circumstances include not only the crucial element of police coercion, the length of the interrogation, its location, its continuity, the defendant's maturity, education, physical condition, and mental health, but also the failure of police to advise the defendant of his rights to remain silent and to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693-94, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (internal citations omitted). The district court dismissed Hambrick's assertion that his statement was involuntary, noting Hambrick failed to point to any specific factors making his confession involuntary. The court recognized the interrogation did not last an unreasonably long amount of time, Hambrick was familiar with police procedures based on his criminal history, and there was no evidence he had poor physical condition or mental health. We agree. First, we note Hambrick does not argue he was not provided Miranda warnings. Second, the duration of the interrogation was relatively brief, lasting just over an hour. In analyzing Hambrick's individual characteristics, he is twenty-eight years old and maintains a familiarity with police procedures based on his lengthy criminal history. As the district court noted, there is no evidence and no allegation of Hambrick having a physically poor condition or weakened mental health. The district court duly weighed these factors and found the confession voluntary, and under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say its determination was incorrect.