Court Opinion

ID: 2964115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:49.690047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.070856
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1871

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                   AMADO FERNANDEZ VENTURA AND MILAGROS A. CEDENO,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            David  S. Kris, Attorney,  with whom  Guillermo Gil, United States
            ______________                        _____________
        Attorney, Antonio R. Bazan, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nina
                  ________________                                        ____
        Goodman, Attorney, were on brief for appellant.
        _______
            Linda  Backiel with  whom Carlos  Ramirez  Fiol  was on  brief for
            ______________            _____________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 30, 1996
                                 ____________________

               COFFIN, Senior  Circuit Judge.  After deplaning  at San Juan
                       _____________________

          International Airport,  defendants  Amado Fernandez  Ventura  and

          Milagros Cedeno  were questioned  by Customs agents  and arrested

          for illegally  transporting money,  in violation  of 31 U.S.C.   

          5316.  They filed a motion to suppress all inculpatory statements

          made in the absence of Miranda warnings, which was  granted.  The
                                 _______

          government appealed.   Having  concluded that the  district court

          applied an erroneous legal test, we remand for reconsideration of

          the suppression motion under the proper standard.

                                      BACKGROUND

          Facts
          _____

               Because  of  his frequent  travel  between  St. Maarten  and

          Puerto  Rico, Fernandez  was  on a  "lookout"  list kept  by  the

          Customs  Service.     On   November  12,  1994,   after  clearing

          immigration,  Fernandez   was  taken   to  a   secondary  Customs

          inspection  area.  One agent  asked Fernandez if  he was carrying

          any money;  Fernandez responded "$8000."   Another agent searched

          his  suitcase, discovered  women's  lingerie, and  asked whom  it

          belonged to.   Fernandez answered "mi  mujer," which colloquially

          means "my wife"  or "my woman."   Fernandez was directed  to find

          her.

               Cedeno,  Fernandez's girlfriend, had already cleared customs

          but  was  still  within  the  customs  area.    Fernandez,  while

          accompanied  by an agent, located Cedeno and returned with her to

          the  secondary inspections  area.   On the  way there,  the agent

                                         -2-

          asked Cedeno whether  she was  carrying any money.   She  replied

          that she was carrying approximately $9,000.  

               A  search of the defendants revealed  that the actual amount

          in  their  possession  was  $16,166.    In  response  to  further

          questioning, Fernandez  revealed that  the money belonged  to his

          money  exchange company, of which  he was president.   The agents

          then placed the couple  under arrest and read them  their Miranda
                                                                    _______

          rights.  

               The  defendants  were charged  with  failing  to report  the

          transportation of  monetary instruments  in excess of  $10,000 in

          violation of 31 U.S.C.   5316, and making false statements to the

          Customs  Service in violation  of 18 U.S.C.    1001.   Upon their

          motion  alleging a  Miranda violation,  the court  suppressed all
                              _______

          statements made by the defendants after Cedeno  was asked whether

          she  was  carrying any  money.   See  United States  v. Fernandez
                                           ___  _____________     _________

          Ventura, 892 F. Supp. 362 (D.P.R. 1995). 
          _______

          The District Court's Opinion
          ____________________________

               The  district court delineated  four relevant  inquiries for

          determining whether  the rule  enunciated in Miranda  v. Arizona,
                                                       _______     _______

          384 U.S. 436 (1966), has been violated: 

               1.   Was the person in "custody"?
               2.   Was the person "interrogated"?
               3.   Had   the   Fifth   Amendment   right   against   self-
          incrimination       attached?
               4.   Had the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached?

          Under the court's analysis, a violation occurs when "each element

          (custody,  un-Mirandized  interrogation, and  attached  Fifth and

          Sixth Amendment rights) . . . exist[s] simultaneously."

                                         -3-

               The court considered  each factor.   It stated that  custody

          "depends  exclusively upon  whether  a reasonable  person in  the

          defendant's position  would have felt  free to  leave."   Because

          "Customs  is  an inherently  coercive  environment  [in that]  an

          individual  is  never  free  to  simply  walk  away,"  the  court

          concluded that  defendants were  in "custody."    In the  court's

          view, "interrogation" was satisfied because "[t]he parties do not

          dispute that all of the questioning conducted by Customs officers

          in this case constituted 'interrogation' as defined and explained

          in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)."
             ____________    _____

               Most of the  court's analysis focused on  whether the rights

          to silence and counsel had attached.  The court held that "in the

          context of  Customs interrogation,  these rights attach  when the

          questioning has ceased to be purely investigatory  and has become

          accusatory."  Elaborating further, the court explained

               [This] has  both an  objective and  subjective element.
               The objective element[]  requires that officers provide
               Miranda warnings when  there exists  probable cause  to
               _______
               make  an arrest . . . . The subjective element requires
               that  officers  provide  Miranda  warnings  when it  is
                                        _______
               apparent  that the  interrogating officer's  purpose in
               questioning is not purely investigatory.

          As applied in the Customs setting: 

               when the  questioning extends beyond that  asked of the
               average   Customs  interrogee  at   either  primary  or
               secondary inspection, we  infer that the  interrogation
               has become sufficiently focused upon the interrogee  to
               require Miranda warnings.
                       _______

               Applying  the  facts to  these  legal  standards, the  court

          concluded that the "interrogation turned accusatorial at the time

          Inspector  Fisher  asked  Cedeno  whether she  was  carrying  any

                                         -4-

          money."   At that point, the "investigation  had clearly narrowed

          to a particular  crime with particular defendants,  based on what

          we infer to  have been  substantial, particularized  suspicions."

          Accordingly,  the  court   determined,  all  ensuing   statements

          violated Miranda, and were properly suppressed.
                   _______

                                      DISCUSSION

               The government claims  that the court's  test for a  Miranda
                                                                    _______

          violation  was legally  erroneous.   Defendants concede  that the

          court's approach was novel, but argue that, taken as a  whole, it

          comports  with settled  precedent.   Our task  in this  appeal is

          straightforward:  to set  forth the Miranda test as  derived from
                                              _______

          Supreme Court  and First Circuit  caselaw and assess  whether the

          district  court followed it.  Our standard  of review is de novo.
                                                                   __ ____

          See United States v. Lewis, 40 F.3d 1325, 1332 (1st Cir. 1994).
          ___ _____________    _____

               Miranda warnings must be given before a suspect is subjected
               _______

          to custodial interrogation.  United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3,
                                       _____________    ______

          7  (1st   Cir.  1993).    The   custodial  interrogation  inquiry

          necessarily   demands  determination   of   its  two   subsidiary

          components:   1) custody and  2) interrogation.   See Illinois v.
                                                            ___ ________

          Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990) ("It is the premise  of Miranda
          _______                                                   _______

          that  the danger  of  coercion results  from  the interaction  of

          custody and official interrogation.").  

               The custody determination is the initial and, generally, the

          central  inquiry:  it is "the touchstone  to the need for Miranda
                                                                    _______

          warnings."  United States v.  Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 160 (1st  Cir.
                      _____________     _____

          1987).  Since  Miranda, the Court has enunciated  several general
                         _______

                                         -5-

          definitions of custody, but the ultimate inquiry is whether there

          was  "a formal arrest or restraint on  freedom of movement of the

          degree associated  with a formal  arrest."  Thompson  v. Keohane,
                                                      ________     _______

          116  S.  Ct. 457,  465  (1995)  (quotation  marks  and  citations

          omitted); Stansbury v. California, 114  S. Ct. 1526, 1529  (1994)
                    _________    __________

          (per curiam) (same).1
           ___ ______

               In order to assess the "restraint on freedom of movement," a

          court  must   examine  all  the  circumstances   surrounding  the

          interrogation.    This test  is  objective:   the  only  relevant

          inquiry is "how  a reasonable  man in the  suspect's shoes  would

          have understood his situation."2   Stansbury, 114 S. Ct.  at 1529
                                             _________

          (quoting Berkemer v.  McCarty, 468  U.S. 420, 442  (1984)).   The
                   ________     _______

          subjective  beliefs held  by  the interrogating  officers or  the

          person being interrogated are not germane.  Id.   
                                                      ___

               Relevant  circumstances  include  "whether the  suspect  was

          questioned  in familiar  or  at least  neutral surroundings,  the

          number  of law  enforcement officers  present  at the  scene, the

                              
          ____________________

               1    This  specific  formulation was  first  articulated  in
          California v.  Beheler, 463 U.S.  1121, 1125 (1983)  (per curiam)
          __________     _______                                ___ ______
          and Minnesota  v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 430 (1984).  It served to
              _________     ______
          clarify  the  Court's conception  that  Miranda  applied after  a
                                                  _______
          "person  has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
          freedom of action in any significant  way."  Miranda, 384 U.S. at
                                                       _______
          444 (footnote omitted).

               2   In  Keohane,  the Court  made  clear that  the  ultimate
                       _______
          determination of custody  is a  mixed question of  fact and  law.
          The initial examination of the "totality of the circumstances" is
          factual.   The second  inquiry, however --  whether, objectively,
          these   circumstances  constitute  the  requisite  "restraint  on
          freedom of  movement  of  the  degree associated  with  a  formal
          arrest"  -- requires  the "application  of the  controlling legal
          standard to the historical facts."  116 S. Ct. at 465 & n.11.

                                         -6-

          degree  of physical  restraint placed upon  the suspect,  and the

          duration and character  of the interrogation."   United States v.
                                                           _____________

          Masse, 816 F.2d 805,  809 (1st Cir. 1987) (quoting  United States
          _____                                               _____________

          v.  Streifel, 781 F.2d 953, 961 n.13  (1st Cir. 1986)).  See also
              ________                                             ___ ____

          United  States v.  Pratt,  645 F.2d  89,  90-91 (1st  Cir.  1981)
          ______________     _____

          (discussing  factors  in  the  context  of  a  secondary  customs

          search).3

               Determining  what constitutes  custody can  be a  "slippery"

          task.  See  Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298,  309 (1985).  Through
                 ___  ______    ______

          case by case development, however, courts have carved out certain

          circumstances  as  legally  insufficient  to  constitute custody.

          See, e.g.,  Berkemer, 468 U.S.  at 437-40 (routine  traffic stops
          ___  ____   ________

          not subject to  dictates of Miranda); United States v. Tajeddini,
                                      _______   _____________    _________

          996   F.2d  1278,   1288   (1st  Cir.   1993)  (routine   Customs

          questioning);  Pratt, 645 F.2d at  90-91 (same).   Indeed, in the
                         _____

          Customs context, we have stated that questions from officials are

          especially understood to be a necessary and important routine for

          travelers arriving at American entry points.  See Pratt, 645 F.2d
                                                        ___ _____

          at 90.   See also United States v. Moya, 74 F.3d 1117, 1120 (11th
                   ___ ____ _____________    ____

          Cir.  1996).   This  understanding cuts  against the  potentially

          coercive  aspect of the Customs inquiry, and lessens the need for

          Miranda warnings.        In   Pratt,  we  made  clear  that  even
          _______                       _____

          secondary  inspection  does  not   per  se  constitute  custodial
                                             ___  __

                              
          ____________________

               3   This  is not  an  exhaustive list.   Other  courts  have
          identified other factors significant  to a custody determination.
          See  Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 641 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing
          ___  _______    _______
          cases).

                                         -7-

          interrogation.    We  acknowledged   that  though  "[a]ny  person

          required to  submit to a  secondary customs search  may apprehend

          some  increased  level  of  official  suspicion[,]  .  .  .  this

          perception  . . . is  not sufficient by  itself to apply coercive

          pressures equivalent to custodial questioning."  645  F.2d at 90.

          There,  we found  that  the limited  and  routine nature  of  the

          questioning and short duration of the encounter militated against

          requiring  Miranda warnings.   The  line between  routine Customs
                     _______

          questioning and custodial interrogation  is not easily drawn, but

          it requires careful examination of all the circumstances.  

               The  other  component  of  custodial  interrogation  is,  of

          course,  interrogation.   Interrogation  refers to  both  express

          questioning  and its "functional equivalent," which includes "any

          words  or actions on  the part  of the  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."  Rhode  Island v.  Innis, 446  U.S. 291,  301
                               _____________     _____

          (1980) (footnotes omitted).  Again the inquiry is objective:  how

          would the  officer's statements  and  conduct be  perceived by  a

          reasonable  person in the same  circumstances?  See   Taylor, 985
                                                          ___   ______

                                         -8-

          F.2d at 7.4  Here, quite clearly, if defendants were in  custody,

          the officers' express questions constituted interrogation.5

               In  summary,  Miranda  warnings  ensure that  an  individual
                             _______

          subject  to custodial  interrogation has  a "full  opportunity to

          exercise the privilege against self-incrimination."  Miranda, 384
                                                               _______

          U.S. at 467.   To  find custodial interrogation,  the court  must

          first  examine  all  the circumstances  surrounding  the exchange

          between the government agent and the suspect, then determine from

          the perspective  of a  reasonable person  in the  suspect's shoes

          whether there was 1) a formal  arrest or restraint on freedom  of

          movement of the  degree associated  with a formal  arrest and  2)

          express questioning or its functional equivalent.

               We  will not  dwell  on all  the  problems in  the  district

          court's  version  of the  Miranda inquiry,  but  point out  a few
                                    _______

          significant errors.  First,  the court took the ultimate  factual

          and  legal question -- were defendants in custody? -- and treated

          it in  a per se manner:   because travelers "may  not simply walk
                   ___ __
                              
          ____________________

               4  However, an  officer's knowledge "'concerning the unusual
          susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of  persuasion
          might be an important  factor in determining' what the  [officer]
          reasonably should have  known."  Pennsylvania v.  Muniz, 496 U.S.
                                           ____________     _____
          582, 601 (1990) (quoting Innis, 446 U.S. at 302 n.8).       
                                   _____

               5  We note  that not all questioning of  in-custody suspects
          constitutes  interrogation  triggering  the Miranda  protections.
                                                      _______
          For   example,  many   courts   recognize  a   "routine   booking
          interrogation" exception to the Miranda rule.   See United States
                                          _______         ___ _____________
          v.  Doe,  878 F.2d  1546, 1551  (1st  Cir. 1989)  (citing cases).
              ___
          Requesting  biographical  information --  name, address,  etc. --
                                                                    ____
          rarely elicits an incriminating  response and serves a legitimate
          administrative  need.   Id.   If, however,  the officer  seeks to
                                  ___
          elicit information  that may incriminate, the  exception does not
          apply.  Id.  We express no opinion on whether this narrow Miranda
                  ___                                               _______
          exception applies in the Customs setting.

                                         -9-

          away from an interrogating  officer," they are in custody.   This

          is simply wrong. Individuals subject  to routine traffic stops or

          customs inspections, circumstances  which are not custodial,  are

          rarely free to leave  while being questioned by an  officer.  The

          relevant inquiry, however, as stated above, is  whether there was

          an  arrest  or restraint  on freedom  of  movement of  the degree

          associated with a formal arrest.    

               The court's  further assertion  that "all  reasonable people

          would  agree that  Customs  is an  inherently custodial  setting,

          regardless  of  the  circumstances  of   the  interrogation,"  is

          directly contrary  to our  decisions in  Tajeddini and  Pratt and
                                                   _________      _____

          runs counter  to the proper  approach articulated by  the Supreme

          Court.    A  custody  determination  requires  inquiry  into  all
                                                                        ___

          circumstances surrounding the interrogation.  See Keohane, 116 S.
                                                        ___ _______

          Ct. at 465 & n.11.    

               Finally, we note that the court, relying on outmoded circuit

          opinions, discussed  certain factors,  such as whether  there was

          probable cause to make an  arrest and the officers' focus  on the

          defendants, which are not relevant to  a Miranda inquiry.  At one
                                                   _______

          time,  certain courts  found these  factors relevant,  see, e.g.,
                                                                 ___  ____

          United  States  v.  Henry, 604  F.2d  908,  915  (5th Cir.  1979)
          ______________      _____

          (articulating a four-factor test  for custody that included these

          factors), but  subsequent Supreme  Court decisions  rejected this

          approach.   See, e.g., Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442 (emphasizing the
                      ___  ____  ________

          objective  nature of  the inquiry).   Indeed,  in light  of these

          cases,  the  Fifth  Circuit  repudiated  its  four-factor   test,

                                         -10-

          announcing that  "[p]robable cause  and focus become  material to

          the  custody  inquiry  only  when  they  influence  a  reasonable

          person's  perception  of  the   situation."    United  States  v.
                                                         ______________

          Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593,  596-97, 597 (5th Cir. 1988)  (en banc)
          __________                                               __ ____

          (footnote omitted).

               Defendants argue that the court's test, taken as a whole, is

          consistent  with our precedent.  We disagree.  Although there may

          be tests  which, though  formulated differently,  approximate the

          proper standard, this is not one of them.  Accordingly, we remand

          this  case to the district  court for application  of the correct

          legal test.  On remand, the court may take additional evidence on

          the relevant factual issues.  See Streifel, 781 F.2d at 962.
                                        ___ ________

               The order suppressing evidence is vacated.  We remand to the
               ____________________________________________________________

          district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
          ____________________________________________________________

                                         -11-