IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:
v. :
: CRIMINAL NO. xx-0050(JGP)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :
:
Defendant. :
______________________________:
MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS AND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
AND REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
xxxxxx, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, to suppress as evidence against him at trial statements and tangible evidence. An evidentiary hearing on this motion is respectfully requested.
As grounds for this Motion, Mr. xxxxx, through counsel, states:
1. Mr. xxxxx is charged by indictment with violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1344, 1708 and related violations of the District of Columbia Code.
2. On September 7, 1997, Amtrack Police Officers arrested Mr. xxxxx and searched his person as well as his briefcase. The Amtrack police Officers retrieved mail from the suitcase and concluded that it was stolen mail. They contacted Metropolitan Police Officers at the First District. These officers retrieved Mr. xxxxx and transported him to a different location.
3. Detective Robert Saunders alledeges that he advised Mr. xxxxx of his constitutional rights, which Mr. xxxxx waived and admitted stealing mail in the Washington, D.C. area. After being questioned by the detective, Mr. xxxxx was then questioned further by postal inspections.
4. Postal Inspectors Leeds and Cowan allegedly advised Mr. xxxxx of his constitutional rights and persuaded Mr. xxxxx to sign a statement typed by the postal inspectors.
5. Subsequent to obtaining Mr. xxxxx' signature on a statement typed by the inspectors, the postal inspectors were able to obtain a search warrant for Mr. xxxxx' residence. Numerous pieces of mail were allegedly retrieved from this residence.
6. Armed with this information, the postal inspectors were able to obtain an arrest warrant for Mr. xxxxx who was in New Jersey at the time the warrant was issued.
7. Prior to obtaining the warrant, the inspectors showed a photo array of several individuals to Florince Cooper, an individual interviewed in reference to Mr. xxxxx.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
I. MR. xxxxx WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT
Because Mr. xxxxx' initial seizure for tresspassing at Union Station was effectuated without a warrant, the government bears the burden of proving that it was legal. Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983); United States v. Allen, 629 F.2d 51, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1980). See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1958). The government bears the burden of adducing sworn testimony sufficient to satisfy this Court that the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officers at the time they seized Mr. xxxxx at Union Station for tresspassing or panhandling justified that seizure. United States v. Jenkins, 530 F. Supp. 8, 10 (D.D.C. 1981), citing, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949).
In this case, the officers lacked probable cause to seize and arrest Mr. xxxxx. It was this illegal seizure and the subsequent search of Mr. xxxxx' briefcase that led to any additional information in the form of mail matter.
Mr. xxxxx' alleged statements, the resulting search warrant for Mr. xxxxx' residence and the arrest warrant as well as the physical evidence obtained by the officers, were the tainted fruits of Mr. xxxxx' initial illegal detention and therefore should be suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
II. MR. xxxxx' STATEMENTS WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF MIRANDA.
Miranda requires suppression during the government's case-in-chief of any unwarned communication by a defendant in response to custodial interrogation. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 2643-44 (1990).
A person is in "custody" for Miranda purposes when he "has been . . . deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. Whether a person is in custody depends upon "how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984). "[T]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to 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). Mr. xxxxx' statements occurred in response to an interrogation by police officers and postal inspectors while Mr. xxxxx was in custody and not free to leave.
Prior to this interrogation, Mr. xxxxx was not advised of the warnings mandated by Miranda, nor did he knowingly and voluntarily waive those rights -- including his right to counsel -- before making any alleged statements. Thus, any statements made by Mr. xxxxx, without the benefit of his Miranda rights, must be suppressed.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, any one of which, alone, is sufficient to compel suppression of the statements and tangible evidence in this case, and for any other reasons this Court deems just and proper, and which may appear in supplemental motions, Melvin xxxxx, through counsel, respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that the physical evidence and statements be suppressed as evidence against him after an evidentiary hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
A. J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
Valencia R. Rainey
Assistant Federal Public Defender 625 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 208-7500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that, on this 20th day of March, 1998, a copy of the foregoing Motion To Suppress Statements and Tangible Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support Thereof and Request For Evidentiary Hearing has been served upon Elisa Poteat, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, the Office of the United States Attorney, 555 Fourth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, by facsimile leaving a copy at the United States District Courthouse drop box for the Office of the United States Attorney's Office in the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Valencia R. Rainey
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:
v. :
: CRIMINAL NO. 9x-0050(JGP)
MELVIN xxxxx :
:
Defendant. :
______________________________:
ORDER
Upon consideration of defendant's motion to suppress statements and tangible evidence and request for evidentiary hearing and the entire record herein,
IT IS THIS ____ day of _________1998, ORDERED that the statements and tangible evidence in this matter are hereby suppressed, and that an evidentiary hearing be held on _______ 1998.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN GARRETT PENN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Elisa Poteat, Esp.
Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
555 Fourth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Valencia Rainey
Assistant Federal Public Defender
625 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004