Fifth Circuit: USA v. Nelson

 

Sufficient grounds for the stop, since, at the border, a consented-to scan of the trailer had revealed it to be largely empty, but a safety seal was evident on the doors; additionally, the stop was within fifty miles of the border.

Being told that he would be free to leave after the canine unit had checked the trailer was insufficiently custodial to exclude the non-mirandized statements in the interval.

Roving stops by Immigration are justified whenever there is reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity.

USA v. Nelson

Fourth Circuit: US v. James Pressley

Deft's unmirandized statements were made in an apparent situation that, if taken as true, would have been considered sufficiently custodial.  Absent any evidence in the record of counsel's strategic considerations in not attempting to suppress the confession, an evidentiary hearing is warranted for the collateral challenge, especially since the deft was, as a matter of law, prejudiced by the admission.

US v. James Pressley

Fourth Circuit: US v. Mohamad Khweis

 Sufficient attenuation in time, place, and interrogators between un-Mirandized US law enforcement intelligence questioning of US citizen in the custory of a foreign state and subsequent Mirandized admissions.  Belief that admission of guilt to a US crime was a necessary condition of being released to US custody did not make the Mirandized statements involuntary.

Conspiracy to provide support to enemy force does not involve use of force sufficient to qualify as a crime of violence.

Concur/dissent: given duration of initial interrogation, attenuation in time and place within a deliberate two-step was insufficient, deft should have been told of inadmissibility of earlier statements.  

US v. Mohamad Khweis

Second Circuit: Osen LLC v. United States Central Command

Prior military FOIA disclosures about specific incidents did not generically waive withholding about similar incidents; the waiver doctrine requires that the waiving disclosure be identical in both specificity and matter, and different incidents are inherently different matters.

Although the military cannot, under a mosaic theory,  withhold disclosures of large amounts of data, but the disclosure is justified where the military contends that each element of the mosaic (each disclosure) might provide information about critical vulnerabilities.

Osen LLC v. United States Central Command

Eighth Circuit: Damon O'Neil v. United States

No ineffective assistance for not seeking Franks hearing given incorrect name provided by search warrant affiant, as there was sufficient evidence of drug activity at the residence, even absent the identities of the suspects provided by the affiant.

Magistrate's omission of check-bo indicating the reason for the affiant's reliability was not fatal to the warrant, as the general endorsement was signed.

No ineffective assistance on not challenging cell phone search, as it was two years in advance of Riley.

Police affidavit furnished during collateral challenge indicating that deft had been Mirandized prior to confession suffices against Strickland challenge, as there was no indication that trial counsel knew or should have known that the deft claimed that he hadn't been read his rights.

Damon O'Neil  v.  United States

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Nehemiah Felders

No plain error in District Court holding that officer testimony that deft was read Miranda rights from state-issued card that might or might not have been sufficient, since deft has burden in plain error review, and record is silent as to contents of card.

USA v.   Nehemiah Felders

Second Circuit: United States v. Santillan

Traffic stop was reasonably prolonged after suspects were nervous and unable to explain where they were coming from.

Admission of statements arising from a discovery of money during patdown later admitted as inevitable discovery was harmless error.

Being placed in the back seat of the police car insufficiently custodial to require Miranda warning.

Passenger in car without a close relationship to the driver does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area around the passenger's seat, and therefore cannot object to a search.

Dissent: Generalized nervousness and presence of energy drinks are not a cause for suspicion; race is occasionally a factor; driver is not required to tell police where they are driving from.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4d152a6-657c-4289-90dd-6ee87159ebe1/2/doc/16-1112com_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4d152a6-657c-4289-90dd-6ee87159ebe1/2/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: Jonathan Ervin v. Michael Bowersox

State's use of a video at trial showing the invocation of previously waived Miranda rights in the course of an interrogation and references to the video in opening and closing statements were not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Factual determinations not unreasonable.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/171743P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: James McKinney v. Bonita Hoffner

Habeas, AEDPA, Miranda


State Supreme Court's holdings -- that a facially equivocal statement was not interrogation and that deft's invocation of right to counsel followed shortly thereafter by an expressed willingness to talk was not a Miranda violation -- might have been made by a fair-minded jurist.

Dissent doesn't account for AEDPA default.

Dissent -- analysis of second utterance should be considered solely as waiver of expressed invocation.


James McKinney v. Bonita Hoffner

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Bob Woods

Fourth Amendment, Miranda


Police had sufficiently reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop for canine search, given odor of drugs, digital scales, and tip that there was a hidden compartment.

Refusal to sign Miranda waiver does not make subsequent statements inadmissible.


United States  v.  Bob Woods

Second Circuit: United States v. Faux

Fourth Amendment, Miranda


Regulation of deft's movements during two hour interrogation held during a search of the personal residence did not amount to custody for purposes of determining the admissibility of statements made to police prior to arrest.


United States v. Faux

Eighth Circuit: Jerome Emmanuel Davis v. Warden Kent Grandlienard

Habeas, AEDPA, Miranda


As the post-invocation statement admitted at the trial was facially exculpatatory and cumulative, state court did not err in denying Habeas.

Concur in J -- The statement was the only evidence placing the deft at the scene of the crime, but state court could have reasonably read it as harmless error.


Jerome Emmanuel Davis  v.  Warden Kent Grandlienard

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Willis

FRE, Due Process, Miranda

No error in introduction of prior bad acts where the conduct was similar and spoke to the specific question in the present case.

Where tribal law required juvenile records to be expunged, and, contrary to that law, the records are later transmitted to another jurisdiction for use in a criminal case, there is no Due Process violation in the second forum.

Where deft invokes right to counsel, subsequent administrative questioning for 30 minutes does not preclude a subsequent immediate waiver of the right.

As deft could attack credibility of victim under the same theory in other ways, no error in exclusion of victim's history.

Where objection for vouching is unspecific, and deft elicits avouching of vouching on cross, review is for plain error.

Where only one harmless error is found on review, no cumulative error.

United States v. Willis

Sixth Circuit: Samantha Bachynski v. Anthony Stewart

Habeas - Miranda.

After post-Miranda invocation of right to counsel, neither the return of detectives to the cell with a phone book and a cell phone nor subsequent re-Mirandizing constitutes interrogation or badgering.

A lower court's citation of a case that rebuts a deft's claim of law based on an asserted factual circumstance does not operate as a finding of that factual circumstance.

Deft's allegations of minatory statements made by the detectives on their return insufficient to violate clearly established constitutional law on Miranda warnings.

Also harmless error, given the other evidence.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0300p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Francisco Garcia v. David Long (12/21)

AEDPA - Interrogations/Miranda.

State court holding that deft's post-Miranda response "no" to question "do you want to talk to us" was equivocal because of context hits the AEDPA trifecta - contrary to, and an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Centrality of admissions at trial establish error as not harmless.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/21/13-57071.pdf