Opinion ID: 3014665
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Unmirandized Statements

Text: Latz moved to suppress the unmirandized statements that he made to Kauffman while handcuffed and seated on his couch. Under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a defendant’s statements made in the course of a custodial interrogation are not admissible as evidence unless the defendant receives appropriate warnings, or an exception applies. See, e.g., United States v. Leese, 176 F.3d 740, 743 (3d Cir. 1999). The government contends that Kauffman’s questioning of 9 Latz did not constitute a custodial interrogation under United States v. Benton, 996 F.2d 642 (3d Cir. 1993), a case in which a law enforcement officer mentioned to the defendant that he had seen the defendant bend over near the location where a gun had been discovered. In response, the defendant made a statement suggesting that he owned the gun. Id. at 643. We rejected the argument that the officer’s statement to the defendant constituted an interrogation. Id. at 664. Instead, the defendant’s “remarks were unforeseeable.” Id. at 664. In this case, in contrast, it was forseeable that Latz would respond to Kauffman’s questioning. Kauffman told Latz that he was not required to talk (suggesting that Kauffman thought he might). But Kauffman was attempting to gain information about firearms in Latz’s house. Because we believe that Kauffman’s statements constituted an interrogation, and because Latz was clearly in custody, we conclude that the District Court erred in declining to suppress Latz’s unmirandized statements.