Opinion ID: 424960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Exception for Routine Booking Procedures

Text: 18 The government contends that DeWitt's questioning falls within the exception to the Miranda requirements for routine background questioning attendant to arrest and booking. See United States v. Thierman, 678 F.2d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d 1231, 1237-38 (9th Cir.1981). 19 In Booth, we explained this exception for routine booking procedures and noted that it arises because background questions rarely elicit an incriminating response. United States v. Booth, 669 F.2d at 1238. If, however, the questions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response in a particular situation, the exception does not apply. Id. As we stated in Booth: 20 Ordinarily, the routine gathering of background, biographical data will not constitute interrogation. Yet we recognize the potential for abuse by law enforcement officers who might, under the guise of seeking objective or neutral information, deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect. 21 Id. (citations omitted). The test is objective. The subjective intent of the agent is relevant but not conclusive. Id. The relationship of the question asked to the crime suspected is highly relevant. Id. 22 In this case, the questioning conducted by Investigator DeWitt was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Mata. The background questions asked related directly to an element of a crime that DeWitt had reason to suspect. DeWitt's intent in asking the questions is inconclusive. Id. Because his questioning was highly likely to elicit incriminating information from Mata, it constituted interrogation under the objective Booth standard. 23 Moreover, the questioning conducted by Investigator DeWitt had little, if any, resemblance to routine booking procedures. As the District of Columbia Circuit noted in United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115, 122-23 (1982), booking is essentially a clerical procedure, occurring soon after the suspect arrives at the police station. The Hinckley court emphasized three factors, all present here, that indicated that the challenged questioning was not booking: (1) the government agency involved does not ordinarily book suspects, (2) a true booking had already occurred and the agency had access to the information obtained, and (3) the questioning occurred well after the suspect was placed in custody (in Hinckley, five hours; here, 10 days). Id. These factors lead us to conclude that any analogy to routine booking procedures is unwarranted.