Opinion ID: 182739
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Issue: Did Detective Song read Butch his Miranda rights?

Text: Butch argues the district court clearly erred in finding Detective Song read Butch his Miranda rights and, as a consequence, should have suppressed the incriminating statements Butch made in the basement. Butch highlights various minor inconsistencies in the law enforcement officers' testimony at his suppression hearing. Butch lodges a credibility challenge, opining the district court should have (1) credited Butch's testimony that no law enforcement officer read Miranda rights to him; (2) credited Barb's testimony that she never saw Butch until after he came out of the basement; and (3) discredited the law enforcement officers' testimony that Detective Song read the Miranda warnings to Butch. Butch's argument is not well taken. A credibility determination made by a district court after a hearing on the merits of a motion to suppress is `virtually unassailable on appeal.' United States v. Frencher, 503 F.3d 701, 701 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Guel-Contreras, 468 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir.2006)). We do not detect clear error in the district court's credibility findings. The district court was forced to choose between the testimony of the Vanovers or the law enforcement officers, and the district court credited the testimony of the officers. Substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Detective Song read Butch his Miranda rights. Detective Song and Deputy Peterman each testified Detective Song read Butch his Miranda rights in the Vanovers' living room and Butch then acknowledged he understood such rights. On cross-examination, Deputy Peterman emphatically stated, There's no question in my mind that it occurred because I was there. While there were some inconsistencies among the officers' storiesespecially regarding the timing and sequence of the events inside the Vanovers' home during the execution of the search warrantthe district court noted these inconsistencies in a thoroughly written order. The district court aptly pointed out (1) the officers, as professionals experienced with high-stress environments, would ordinarily remember the facts better than nervous suspects; (2) Miranda warnings are routine; and (3) the officers had less incentive to lie than the Vanovers.