Opinion ID: 3040096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brown’s Statements

Text: Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation. Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1246-47 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980)). Interrogation means “express questioning or its functional equivalent . . . any words or actions on the part of police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 146 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Innis, 446 U.S. at 300-01). The Government concedes that Brown was in custody and had not received Miranda warnings when he told the police about the gun in his backpack. The District Court found, however, that the police never interrogated Brown, who volunteered his statement without any prompting by police. Accordingly, the District Court correctly concluded that there was no Fifth Amendment violation. In asking us to reverse, Brown does little more than take issue with the District Court’s decision to credit Detectives Maxwell and Vega and discredit Brown. The District Court saw and heard all three witnesses; we will not disturb its credibility determinations. See United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1080 (3d Cir. 1996) (“It is not for us to . . . determine the credibility of the witnesses.”) (quoting United States v. Schoolcraft, 879 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1989)). Thus, Brown was not subject to interrogation, Miranda warnings were not required, and there was no violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Alston, 34 F.3d at 1246-47. 6 In these circumstances, the District Court properly denied Brown’s motion to suppress the statement.