Opinion ID: 8414555
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Schaffer’s Pretrial Motion to Suppress

Text: Prior to trial, Schaffer moved to suppress the statements he made during the interview with Agents Mancene and Buckley. He claimed that the District Court should exclude his statements because he made them during a custodial interrogation without having first received a Miranda warning. More specifically, he argued that he was in “custody” within the meaning of Miranda because the agents prevented him from leaving the interview, denied him access to an attorney, and denied him access to medication. The government opposed Schaffer’s motion. In order to resolve the motion, the District Court held a suppression hearing, at which Agent Mancene testified. Agent Mancene attested to the facts described above and the District Court found his testimony credible. 9 Relying on that testimony, the District Court denied Schaffer’s motion to suppress, holding that no reasonable person in Schaffer’s position would “have understood that his interrogation was being conducted pursuant to arrest-like restraints.” 10 The District Court identified several factors leading to its conclusion that Schaffer was not in custody. 11 For example, the District Court noted that the agents informed Schaffer he was not under arrest, that Schaffer voluntarily agreed to speak with the agents, and that the agents did not restrain Schaffer during the interview. 12 While the District Court also recognized that Agent Mancene prevented Schaffer from leaving the interview, it concluded that such a limited restriction on Schaffer’s freedom of action was not indicative of “custody” under the circumstances presented. 13 It also found no credible evidence supporting Schaffer’s claim that agents denied him an attorney or medication. 14