Opinion ID: 3185495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Milton Laws

Text: On the fourth day of trial, Milton Laws moved to suppress statements he made to an IRS agent at his mother’s home, while a search of the home was being executed. Specifically, Laws asserted that he was handcuffed, and therefore in custody, at the time he was interviewed by the IRS agent. After a hearing, which began that same day, the district court granted Laws’ motion to suppress. Two days later, the government moved for reconsideration and, at a second hearing, presented the testimony of nine additional witnesses. After this hearing, the district court issued a thorough written decision discussing the evidence presented and applying the appropriate legal test to determine whether Laws was in custody at the time of his interview. The district court found that while Laws had been handcuffed when his pockets were searched, he was subsequently uncuffed and told that he was free to -8- leave before he was interviewed by the IRS agent.3 The court concluded that Laws had not been in custody at the time he made the statements and, this time, denied his motion to suppress. Laws argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting the government’s motion to reconsider, and clearly erred in finding that he was not in custody when he made the statements to the IRS agent. We review the district court’s decision to reconsider its ruling on the suppression issue for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hayden, 759 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 691 (2014). The standard that the district court is required to apply in making that decision, however, is not established in this circuit. See id. at 846. There are two basic standards in use in other circuits: while some require the government to justify its failure to present relevant evidence at the original suppression hearing, others have declined to impose a justification requirement and have instead prioritized the introduction of lawfully obtained evidence. Compare United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v. Kithcart, 218 F.3d 213, 219–20 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667, 678–79 (4th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 530 U.S. 428 (2000); United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051, 1055 (11th Cir. 1995); McRae v. United States, 420 F.2d 1283, 1286–88 (D.C. Cir. 1969) with United States v. Rabb, 752 F.2d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 181 (1987). Under either standard, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reopening the suppression issue. 3 The district court’s findings suggested that some of the confusion stemmed from a difference in policy between the IRS, whose agent testified that use of handcuffs was very uncommon during the execution of IRS search warrants, and the Pine Bluff Police Department, who assisted in the execution of the warrant and whose officer testified that use of handcuffs was their standard procedure in executing drugrelated warrants. For some reason, many of the police officers who assisted in the execution of the warrant were officers from the Vice and Narcotics Unit. -9- Laws’ initial motion to suppress was untimely, raised on the fourth day of trial. The initial suppression hearing began that same day, giving the government little or no time to prepare its response to Laws’ allegations. The government filed its motion to reconsider only two days after the court’s initial ruling, and cited specific evidence bearing directly on the question of custody that had not been presented to the court at the first hearing. A time period of two days to gather and interview nine witnesses, while trial was ongoing, is not excessive, and the government may not reasonably have been able to gather that evidence in the time between the filing of Laws’ suppression motion and the court’s ruling. Even under the more stringent standard, the government provided sufficient justification for its failure to present all relevant evidence at the first hearing on Laws’ belated motion to suppress. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the government’s motion to reconsider its prior ruling and reopen the suppression issue. Cf. United States v. Chavez Loya, 528 F.3d 546, 555 (8th Cir. 2008). We now proceed to our substantive review of the court’s denial of Laws’ motion to suppress. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. Chavez Loya, 528 F.3d at 552. Laws does not identify any clear error in the factual findings underlying the district court’s ruling. In fact, the court resolved the bulk of the disputed factual issues in Laws’ favor, finding—contrary to the testimony presented by the government—that he was in fact handcuffed at some point during the execution of the search warrant. Rather, Laws argues that the district court erred in concluding that, given the facts and circumstances of his interview with the IRS agent, a reasonable person would not have understood himself to be in custody. “In determining whether a suspect is ‘in custody’ at a particular time we examine the extent of the physical or psychological restraints placed on the suspect during interrogation in light of whether a ‘reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation’ to be one of custody.” United States v. Griffin, -10- 922 F.2d 1343, 1347 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984)). Indicia of custody include: (1) whether the suspect was informed at the time of questioning that the questioning was voluntary, that the suspect was free to leave or request the officers to do so, or that the suspect was not considered under arrest; (2) whether the suspect possessed unrestrained freedom of movement during questioning; (3) whether the suspect initiated contact with authorities or voluntarily acquiesced to official requests to respond to questions; (4) whether strong arm tactics or deceptive stratagems were employed during questioning; (5) whether the atmosphere of the questioning was police dominated; or, (6) whether the suspect was placed under arrest at the termination of the questioning. Id. at 1349. The district court found that Laws had been handcuffed before his interview, that he did not initiate the interview, that the atmosphere of the house was dominated by law enforcement, and that the occupants of the house were not free to move around without being accompanied by police. The district court also found that Laws was not arrested at the end of the interview, and that the interview lasted only ten minutes. Most importantly, the district court found that an IRS agent advised all occupants of the house, including Laws, that they were free to leave after Laws was uncuffed and before he made any statements to one of the agents. Based on these factual findings, the district court did not err in finding that Laws was not in custody when he made the statements he seeks to suppress. Though here the second, third, and fifth Griffin factors weigh in favor of custody, an explicit advisory that an individual is free to leave generally “weigh[s] heavily toward a finding of non-custodial status.” United States v. Elzahabi, 557 F.3d 879, 884 (8th Cir. 2009). Laws was handcuffed for a period of time before being told that he was free to leave. He was not personally advised of his right to leave, but rather was generally advised along with all other occupants of the house that they were free to go. These factors make this a closer case for custody than those situations where a -11- suspect is specifically, personally, and repeatedly advised of their right to end the encounter with law enforcement. See id.; United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822, 826 (8th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, we have held more than once that an “explicit assertion that the defendant may end the encounter . . . . generally removes any custodial trappings from the questioning.” Elzahabi, 557 F.3d at 884 (quoting United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135, 1138 (8th Cir. 2006)). Here, the district court found that Laws was so advised. The court’s finding was not clearly erroneous, and we accordingly conclude that Milton Laws was not in custody at the time of his interview with the IRS agent. The district court properly denied Laws’ motion to suppress.