Court Opinion

ID: 9499741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:56:38.442653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:42.144041
License: Public Domain

*542WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment,
I concur in the judgment. I agree that Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004), states an exception to Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). However, the question then becomes whether the district court clearly erred by finding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents did not employ the deliberate, two-step strategy outlawed in Seibert. I do not have a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court’s finding on this issue is mistaken. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (citation and quotations omitted). Bearam fails to demonstrate clear error, and El-stad applies. Bearam does not contend that his second confession was either unwarned or involuntary. The second confession was therefore admissible. I would go no further to affirm.