Court Opinion

ID: 9479454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:19:14.29568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:03.508981
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the trial judge was clearly erroneous in his suppression of the evidence in this matter.
Mr. Carter was never in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, a prerequisite to the need for the administration of Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629-30, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Mr. Carter was called, at his office, by the bank president’s secretary and was asked to come to the president’s office. He was interviewed in the president’s office, but he was never physically restrained. He was permitted to call his spouse when the time consumed by the discussion continued past his usual depar*376ture time and he was permitted to go to his home at the conclusion of the interview. There were no locked doors, blocked doors or communications directed to Mr. Carter that indicated that he was in custody or otherwise significantly deprived of his freedom.
Notwithstanding the noncustodial setting, Mr. Carter was ultimately given Miranda warnings after which warnings he prepared a statement in his own handwriting which statement, given after an oral question and answer session had ensued, inculpated him in a serious crime.
Carter’s written statement, in my view, also falls well within the ruling in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). The “unwarned” remarks in Elstad, made in a custodial setting in Elstad’s home, preceded an incriminating statement made after Elstad was arrested and transported to the sheriff’s headquarters where he remained in a custodial status. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the “unwarned” statement compromised the “warned” statement and the Supreme Court permitted use of the “warned” statement as evidence. Here, we have an even less problematic situation since the later statement, made subsequent to adequate warnings, was made in a noncustodial atmosphere.
Thus, I would reverse the district court and remand this matter for further proceedings at which the “warned” statement and physical evidence at issue may be used by the government in meeting its burden of proof.