Court Opinion

ID: 9455237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:15:23.353727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:30.852569
License: Public Domain

SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
It is vitally important to bear in mind the context that generated Browney’s case. It is one of those arising in the twilight zone created by Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) : the disputed interviews occurred prior to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but the trial was commenced after that date. At the time of the investigation the IRS was doing all it was obligated to do under -pre-Miranda law, and perhaps even more. Present IRS policy, as evidenced by what happened in this case after the Miranda decision, is to accord full warnings to all suspects, even those not in custody. See Hensley v. United States, 406 F.2d 481, 484 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1968).
Thus we seem to be faced with the following dilemma: Shall we condemn as insufficient conduct that by all known rules was exemplary at the time? Or shall we uphold the agents’ action and concomitantly hold that today’s IRS practice is superfluous? Taking this view of the avenues open to it, the majority chooses the latter alternative. While I concur in the result reached, I find that the dilemma is in fact only apparent and I would take a third course, one which sanctions the events of the past without undermining the present procedure.
The majority correctly recognizes that the Miranda mandate to notify the suspected taxpayer of his right to counsel is not limited to custodial situations. It says that Miranda is not triggered when an accused is neither in custody, nor deprived of his freedom in any significant way, nor subject to coercion or intimidation. The position that this court takes, as I understand it, would not confine Miranda to deprivations of physical freedom, but would include any set of circumstances that robs a person of freedom of will or independence of judgment.
I agree with my brethren as far as they go. However, their approach necessarily involves case-by-case adjudication, and the Seventh Circuit, on the basis of its experience in assessing confessions and admissions elicited in tax cases, has found this technique unsatisfactory. In United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1969), the court upheld a district court ruling that the four Miranda warnings must be afforded whenever a tax audit turns into a criminal investigation, even if the taxpayer is not in custody. Judge Cummings, who wrote for the majority, was impressed by the fact that the average citizen often misapprehends the nature of a tax inquiry and unwittingly cooperates to his detriment in the mistaken belief that when his unpaid tax obligation has been *53determined and paid the revenue agents will be satisfied.
The court said,
We understand the teaching of Miranda to be that one confronted with governmental authority in an adversary situation should be accorded the opportunity to make an intelligent decision as to the assertion or relinquishment of those constitutional rights designed to protect him under precisely such circumstances.
413 F.2d 1114.
Accordingly the court decided that henceforth Miranda warnings would be required “at the inception of the first contact with the taxpayer after the case has been transferred to the Intelligence Division.” 413 F.2d 1117.
I disassociate myself from my brethren insofar as they reject Dickerson. We need not take a position on Dickerson at this time and can easily avoid both horns of our apparent dilemma. Browney was specifically told that he could remain silent or refuse to answer any questions that would incriminate him. He was also informed that the investigation was not routine, and he was thus cautioned on the direction the investigation might take. Even though he was not warned of his right to counsel, he was put on guard of the pitfalls that have given concern to the Dickerson court. In the special circumstances of this ease — where Miranda had not yet been announced and the agents fully performed the constitutional duties of the day — we are not driven, even under Dickerson, to hold that the failure to warn of the right to counsel constituted reversible error.
While I am aware that Dickerson is not in the mainstream of past decisions, including some in our circuit, I nevertheless find it persuasively reasoned. At least it is entitled to our serious consideration in a future case if and when the question is properly before us. Should a situation arise that calls for a decision on this point, I trust that the court will not deem itself barred from examining the question.