Opinion ID: 2977333
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kellogg’s Intoxication Claim

Text: Kellogg contends that he was under the influence of Xanax at the time he was questioned by officers and that he therefore could not consent to a waiver of his rights at any point during his interaction with police, either in signing the consent to search form, or in signing his waiver of rights form on the way to Chattanooga. “Evidence that a defendant suffered, at the relevant time, from a condition or deficiency that impaired his cognitive or volitional capacity is never, by itself, sufficient to warrant the conclusion that his confession was involuntary for purposes of due process; some element of police coercion is always necessary.” United States v. Newman, 889 F.2d 88, 94 (6th Cir. 1989). Kellogg has not presented evidence refuting the testimony of Melia and Ruffin–who both said that he was coherent and appropriately responsive–or evidence that Melia and Ruffin coerced him into waiving his rights at any point. Thus, the district court’s rejection of Kellogg’s intoxication claim was not clearly erroneous. 2. Kellogg’s Response to Consent to Search Request Kellogg contends that, because Melia and Ruffin did not inform him of his Miranda rights prior to asking for his consent to search the duplex, his statement that anything illegal in the apartment was his, and that Huckabee should not be blamed, should have been suppressed. “A suspect is in custody for purposes of receiving Miranda protection if there has been a ‘formal arrest or restraint of movement.’” Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604, 631 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)). It is undisputed that Kellogg was in 11 No. 07-5466 custody for purposes of the Miranda inquiry when Melia sought Kellogg’s consent to search the duplex. Interrogation is defined as “express questioning . . . [and] any words or actions on the part of police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). A simple request to search cannot be reasonably expected to elicit anything more than a “yes” or “no,” and thus is not an interrogation. United States v. Kellogg, 202 F. App’x 96, 103 (6th Cir. 2006)1; see also United States v. Glenna, 878 F.2d 967, 971 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[A]lthough the district court believed that the officers’ request for consent . . . was ‘reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response’ and therefore ran afoul of Miranda, every federal circuit court that has addressed the question has reached the opposite conclusion.”) (citation omitted) (collecting cases). Whether the agents “interrogated” Kellogg is an issue of fact this Court reviews for clear error. United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1512 (6th Cir. 1988). After introducing himself and Ruffin to Kellogg, Melia immediately requested Kellogg’s consent to search the duplex and asked Kellogg to sign the consent form. These requests did not constitute an “interrogation,” because they were not “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from [Kellogg].” See Clark, 982 F.2d at 968 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Rather, as the magistrate judge correctly observed, Melia should have reasonably expected a “yes” or “no” from Kellogg in response to those questions. Kellogg, 2006 WL 3196902, at . Accordingly, because the district court did not err in finding that Kellogg was not “interrogated” for 1 The defendant in the cited case is not the defendant appealing this action. 12 No. 07-5466 purposes of Miranda, it properly denied Kellogg’s motion to suppress his statement taking responsibility for anything illegal in the apartment. 3. Statements Confirming Contraband in Kellogg’s Residence Unlike his request for consent to search, Melia’s questions to Kellogg regarding the existence and location of the gun used during the robbery and the cash box taken from the bank during the robbery constituted an interrogation. A reasonable officer would know that such questions were likely to elicit an incriminating response. See Innis, 446 U.S. at 301. Thus, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, officers were required to inform Kellogg of his constitutional rights and to obtain a waiver of those rights in order for the incriminating statements to be admitted at trial. Melia and Ruffin both testified that they could not recall whether Kellogg signed the Miranda waiver form prior to their departure for Chattanooga. Moreover, the magistrate judge noted that, although Melia testified that he generally reads arrested suspects their Miranda rights before questioning them, he did not testify that he considered his questions regarding the location of contraband in the house to be “questioning.” Kellogg, 2006 WL 3196902, at . Based on this record, the magistrate judge’s finding that it was “not clear as to whether Kellogg was given a Miranda warning and waived his rights” prior to the interrogation was not clearly erroneous (emphasis supplied). Because the government has failed to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that Kellogg waived his Miranda rights before this questioning began, see Nichols, 512 F.3d at 798, this Court finds that Kellogg’s statements identifying the location of contraband and robbery evidence in the duplex must be suppressed, absent an applicable exception. Clark, 982 F.2d at 96768. 13 No. 07-5466 As the magistrate judge noted, “there is a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.” Quarles, 467 U.S. at 655. The “public safety” exception applies to “a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.” Id. at 656. This Court evaluates the reasonableness of an officer’s belief that either the public or law enforcement officers were in danger de novo. United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir. 2007). In determining the applicability of the public safety exception, this Court considers factors including “the known history and characteristics of the suspect, the known facts and circumstances of the alleged crime, and the facts and circumstances confronted by the officer when he undertakes the arrest.” Id. at 428. However, “[f]or an officer to have a reasonable belief that he [or the public] is in danger, at a minimum, he must have reason to believe (1) that the defendant might have (or recently have had) a weapon, and (2) that someone other than police might gain access to the weapon and inflict harm with it. The public safety exception is applied if and only if both of those two conditions are satisfied and no other context-specific evidence rebuts the inference that the officer reasonably could have perceived a threat to public safety.” Id. In Williams, where an arresting officer believed a gun to be in the defendant’s room, this Court noted that “if one were to believe that [the defendant] was seated outside of his room and handcuffed when an officer questioned him . . . then the officers could not have had an objectively reasonable fear for their safety and the public safety exception would not apply.” Id. at 429. See also United States v. Brathwaite, 458 F.3d 376, 382 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (rejecting application of public safety exception where police secured the suspect and his co-residents, conducted two security sweeps and gained control over the residence). 14 No. 07-5466 The public safety exception does not apply to the questioning of Kellogg about the contraband and robbery evidence in the duplex. The suspicion that Kellogg had recently committed a bank robbery at gunpoint was enough to satisfy the first prong of the Williams standard, i.e., that he might have had a weapon in the duplex. However, since the arresting officers had just ordered all of the occupants out of the duplex, handcuffed Kellogg and conducted a security sweep of the residence, there was no reason to believe that a weapon would be immediately accessible to individuals other than police. Thus, the immediate danger to the officers or the public was insufficient to justify the officers’ failure to inform Kellogg of his rights prior to eliciting incriminating statements regarding the items in the duplex. See Williams, 483 F.3d at 429 (finding officer’s knowledge of the violent crime defendant was alleged to have just committed insufficient to justify a belief that the officer or the public was in danger). Moreover, in addition to asking Kellogg where the gun was, Melia also asked for the location of drugs and evidence from the bank robbery, neither of which could have been directed at alleviating the immediate danger of the situation. Certainly, those questions were “designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect,” Quarles, 467 U.S. at 658-59, and further undermine the government’s argument that the officers acted out of safety concerns alone. This Court therefore finds that Kellogg’s statements concerning the location of contraband and bank robbery evidence in the duplex violated his Fifth Amendment rights, and the district court erred in denying Kellogg’s motion to suppress those statements.