Opinion ID: 750919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statements made after Miranda warning

Text: 13 Pursuant to United States v. Henley, 984 F.2d 1040, the government agreed not to use the statements Fernandez made regarding the control and ownership of the El Camino incident to its search. Nevertheless, this technical Miranda violation (see Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985)) did not taint Fernandez's statements made after being given Miranda warnings and waiving his rights. The admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made. Id. at 309. Statements are involuntary if under the totality of the circumstances, the government obtained the confession by coercion or improper inducement. United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 888 (9th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted). 14 Even if Fernandez was under the influence of drugs during these two interviews, that alone was insufficient to establish that his statements made after the Miranda warnings were involuntary. The circumstances surrounding Fernandez's statements would not yield a finding that the drugs influenced the voluntariness of the statements. See United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1985). More importantly, however, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not 'voluntary.'  Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986). Failure to investigate whether Fernandez was capable of making a voluntary statement could hardly be construed as coercive police activity, and in any event, the officers did indeed investigate Fernandez's ability to make a voluntary statement, determining that Fernandez was capable of doing so.