Opinion ID: 172022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fifth Amendment Violations

Text: Mr. Eastom clarified at oral argument that he is appealing the denial of the suppression of (1) his statement at his house that he did not want to go to jail, and (2) his written statement given at the police station. 3 He argues that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated in two ways. First, he argues that both statements were made involuntarily because the police “were effectively holding the threat of charges over his head.” Second, he asserts that the statement given at his house resulted from an improper interrogation because he was “confronted with seized 3 At oral argument, when clarifying which statements he made at his house that he was challenging, Mr. Eastom mistakenly included among the challenged statements his statement that the drugs belonged to him rather than his girlfriend. This statement was actually made in the written statement. -10- contraband.” We conclude that the Fifth Amendment did not prohibit the admission of either of the challenged statements. Even if a defendant’s Miranda rights are not violated, his statements are inadmissible if they were made involuntarily. United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 1987). We review the district judge’s determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness de novo, viewing the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Muniz, 1 F.3d 1018, 1021–22 (10th Cir. 1993). The burden of proof is on the government to prove the statements were voluntary. Id. at 1021. Further, if a person voluntarily speaks without interrogation by an officer, the Fifth Amendment’s protection is not at issue, and the statements are admissible. Id. at 1022; see United States v. Torres-Guevara, 147 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Because the statement was volunteered, rather than given in response to any interrogation, [the] statement also was admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings.”). Here, both statements were given voluntarily by Mr. Eastom. Officer Ashley testified that he never threatened or intimidated Mr. Eastom. In addition, Mr. Eastom never indicated that he did not want to cooperate. In fact, Mr. Eastom read and signed a “Notification of Rights Waiver” before making his written statement. Mr. Eastom argues that his statements were involuntary because the officers were “effectively holding the threat of charges over his head.” In effect, he argues that a criminal suspect’s knowledge of the potential for criminal prosecution is alone -11- sufficient to cause an individual’s statements to be involuntary. However, if this were true, incriminating statements by individuals suspected of illegal activities would rarely be admissible. The record also demonstrates that the challenged statement given by Mr. Eastom at his house was not obtained as a result of interrogation. Mr. Eastom’s being “confronted with seized contraband” did not involve any questioning. Instead, it appears that this “confrontation” was the police explanation to him of why they were in his home and the possible presence of the seized items in his living room. This is alone insufficient to constitute interrogation. Therefore, Mr. Eastom’s statements were not rendered inadmissible by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326 (1969) (holding that the Fifth Amendment, as construed in Miranda v. Arizona, required the exclusion of statements given by the defendant while he was questioned on his own bed by four officers).