Opinion ID: 771366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements in the Car

Text: 11 Orso argues that the district court should have suppressed her statements made in the patrol car, because those statements were made prior to her being given a Miranda warning, and took place during a custodial interrogation. Statements obtained from a suspect through custodial interrogation prior to a Miranda warning are not admissible at trial (when offered for their truth), whether or not they are voluntarily made. United States v. Moreno, 891 F.2d 247, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 12 The government concedes for purposes of this appeal that the inspectors committed a Miranda violation by their conduct in the patrol car. A Miranda violation occurs when a suspect is interrogated while in custody without first being advised of his rights. See United States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 894 F.2d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 1990). Because Orso's Miranda rights were violated in the car, her statements to the inspectors while she was being transported to the Postal Inspection Service Office must be suppressed. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). 13 Although the government concedes that the inspectors violated Miranda, it contends that Orso's statements were not actually incriminating. We disagree. Orso stated that if the letter carrier identified her, then it must be me.  Her other statements, while insufficient to constitute a confession, were certainly inculpatory as well. She stated that she knew someone who had been implicated in the crime, expressed surprise at the possibility of receiving a long sentence for the crime, and opined that she could serve a shorter sentence for it. Statements are incriminating under Miranda as long as they incriminate [the defendant] in any manner,  because the privilege against self-incrimination does not distinguish degrees of incrimination. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476. Therefore, we have no doubt that the statements in the car were incriminating. 14