Opinion ID: 1037023
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Obtained by Custodial Interrogation

Text: Strausbaugh also challenges the admission of statements he made during a custodial interrogation, arguing that they were the result of improper coercion. The record does not support his contention. We exercise plenary review over the district court’s legal conclusions, and clear error review of its factual findings. Torres, 534 F.3d at 209. An admission made during a custodial interrogation may only be used if it is clear that the defendant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1979), and that the waiver was made as a free, deliberate, and fully aware choice absent intimidation, coercion, or deception. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2260 (2010). The record indicates that Strausbaugh deliberately waived his Miranda rights—his Miranda rights were read to him, he was presented with a written copy of the rights, which he signed, and he initialed that written copy as each right was explained. Then, Strausbaugh signed an express waiver of those rights before he answered any questions, and investigators went over his rights against self-incrimination again before beginning questioning. Furthermore, the record contradicts Strausbaugh’s argument that the Postal Inspector who interviewed him coerced Strausbaugh into giving statements by promising 9 him that he would go to a rehabilitation center instead of jail. Thus, the District Court did not err by allowing Strausbaugh’s admissions into the record.