CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
|
|
- Marshall Wilkins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court File No. 16-cr-0006 (MJD/LIB) (1) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Nodin Makwa, Defendant. This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Defendant Nodin Makwa s ( Defendant ) Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24]; and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Charging. [Docket No. 25]. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Rule The Court held a motions hearing on March 1, 2016, regarding Defendant s pretrial motions. Following the motions hearing, the parties requested an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing which was completed on March 15, 2016, and Defendant s Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24]; and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Charging, [Docket No. 25], were then taken under advisement by the undersigned on March 15, For reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends DENYING Defendant s Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24], and DENYING Defendant s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Charging. [Docket No. 25].
2 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 22 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 Defendant is charged with one count of forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding a person assisting an officer or employee of the United States in the performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) and 111(b). (Indictment, [Docket No. 14]). The Red Lake Indian Reservation (the Reservation ) was created as the product of treaties between the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (the Tribe ) and the United States that were entered into in 1863, 1864, 1889, and The Reservation is comprised of a single large primary parcel of land, as well as, a number of smaller non-contiguous land parcels that, combined, span five counties in north central Minnesota. The Tribe is governed by an elected Tribal Council. Prior to the mid-1990s, the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA ) provided law enforcement services on the Reservation. In the mid-1990s, the Tribal Council and the BIA concluded an agreement by which the Tribe assumed the BIA s responsibilities for providing law enforcement on the Reservation and, currently, law enforcement services on the Reservation are provided by a police force that is overseen by a director who reports to the Tribal Council. Pursuant to the agreement, the source of the tribal police force s jurisdiction to provide law enforcement services on the Reservation comes from the BIA as do the standards for the provision of those lawenforcement services. The BIA also provides federal funding for the Tribe s police force through an annual funding agreement, by which the BIA makes an annual lump sum payment to the Tribe that encompasses funding for tribal law enforcement services on the Reservation, as well 1 The Court s Statement of Facts is based, except where expressly indicated otherwise, on the testimony of Michelle Paquin of the Legal Department of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Red Lake Police Officer Alexandra Dow, Red Lake Police Officer Kerry Petschl, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Christopher Dudley, Beltrami County Sheriff s Office Deputy David Hart, and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Special Agent Ricky Wouri, Jr., from the March 1, 2016, motions hearing. 2
3 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 22 as, some other programs. However, Red Lake tribal police officers are employed by the Tribe and the agreement commits day-to-day supervision of tribal police officers to the Tribe. At approximately 5:00 p.m. on August 8, 2015, the Red Lake Police Department received a call reporting that a fight had occurred at the Buffalo residence. Red Lake Police Officer Alexandra Dow was dispatched to the residence. While en route, Officer Dow spotted a then unidentified male driving a car away from the residence. When she arrived at the residence, Officer Dow spoke to Nicole Buffalo, who told Officer Dow that Defendant had been at the residence, that he had been intoxicated and had wanted to fight people at the residence, and that Defendant had since left. A child, who was also at the residence, told Officer Dow that Defendant was in possession of a handgun. After determining that no one at the residence had been harmed, Officer Dow left to look for Defendant and the vehicle that she had previously observed driving away from the residence. Officer Dow put out a broadcast over the tribal police radio to other officers in the area in which she described Defendant and the car, including its license plate number, and that she had seen the car driving away from the Buffalo residence. In the broadcast, Officer Dow reported that Defendant was intoxicated, that he had been involved in an assault at the Buffalo residence, and that she had been told that Defendant had a handgun when he left the residence. Broadcasts over the Red Lake Police radio can be heard by other Red Lake Police officers, the dispatch center of the Red Lake Police Department, as well as, law enforcement officers from other agencies who may be in the area. Red Lake Police Officer Kerry Petschl was driving northbound on Highway 89 towards the Reservation when he initially heard Officer Dow s broadcast. After he crossed onto the Reservation and was approximately one mile north of the Reservation s southern border, Officer 3
4 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 22 Petschl encountered a car travelling southbound towards him on Highway 89 that matched Officer s Dow s description of the vehicle that had left the Buffalo residence. Officer Petschl also determined that the license plate on the car matched the one identified by Officer Dow. Officer Petschl turned his pickup truck around to follow the car and he engaged his emergency lights and siren to attempt to initiate a traffic stop. The car, however, continued travelling southbound on Highway 89 towards the southern boundary of the Reservation at a high rate of speed. The truck that Officer Petschl was driving was not able to keep up with the car and he radioed for assistance in pursuing the car. He contacted the Red Lake Police Department dispatch center and told the dispatcher that the car he was pursuing was likely heading off the Reservation. Officer Petschl asked the dispatcher to notify the Beltrami County Sheriff s Office that he was continuing to pursue the car as it left the Reservation. Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) Special Agent Christopher Dudley ( SA Dudley ) is stationed at the Bemidji resident agency, the primary responsibility of which is to investigate violent crimes on the Reservation. Shortly before 5:30 p.m. on August 8, 2015, SA Dudley was travelling northbound in an SUV on Highway 89 to the Reservation. Approximately a quarter-mile north of the southern boundary of the Reservation, SA Dudley spotted Officer Petschl travelling southbound towards him at a high rate of speed with his emergency lights and siren activated. Officer Petschl s truck was the only emergency response vehicle SA Dudley could see travelling southbound, and he believed that Officer Petschl was alone in responding to a possible incident at a casino located just inside the southern boundary of the Reservation. SA Dudley turned his SUV around to follow Officer Petschl, and he also activated his emergency lights and siren. SA Dudley also turned up the volume on his radio and heard radio traffic between Officer Petschl and the Red Lake Police dispatcher indicating that Officer Petschl was 4
5 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 5 of 22 pursuing a possibly armed individual suspected of committing an assault on the Reservation who was travelling in excess of 100 miles per hour. SA Dudley concluded that the reported assault was likely to have been a violent crime that the FBI would eventually become involved in investigating. He contacted the Red Lake Police Department dispatcher by radio to inform the Red Lake Police that he was in the area and that he was joining the pursuit. Immediately after contacting the Red Lake Police dispatcher, SA Dudley then used his cellular telephone to contact the Beltrami County Sheriff s Office to request assistance because the pursuit was heading off of the Reservation. Within minutes of initiating the call, he was informed that Beltrami County had dispatched officers to respond and that a Beltrami County Deputy, Deputy David Hart, and a Minnesota State Trooper would be setting up spike strips on Highway 89 approximately ten miles south of the Reservation at the intersection with Grange Road. Defendant ultimately avoided the spike strips and turned westbound on Grange Road. Both SA Dudley and Officer Petschl continued to pursue Defendant as the Minnesota State Trooper and Deputy Hart pulled up the spike strips and then got in their vehicles to join the pursuit. The Beltrami County Sheriff s Office and the Red Lake Police Department maintain a reciprocal policy regarding pursuits that proceed on to and off of the Reservation. Pursuant to that policy, deputies of the Beltrami County Sheriff s Office, once they are able, will become primary in a pursuit that comes off of the Reservation into Beltrami County; and Red Lake Police officers, once they are able, will become primary on pursuits that proceed from Beltrami County onto the Reservation. Once the Minnesota State Trooper and Deputy Hart caught up to the pursuit, SA Dudley motioned to Deputy Hart to take the primary position in the pursuit while 5
6 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 6 of 22 SA Dudley and Officer Petschl dropped behind the other law enforcement vehicles because their vehicles were not pursuit rated and were not able to match Defendant s speed, which at times exceeded 120 miles per hour. Neither SA Dudley nor Officer Petschl, however, abandoned the pursuit. The pursuit continued westbound for approximately six miles, where Defendant turned northbound at a county line road. Before the pursuit returned to the Reservation boundary, Defendant turned eastbound onto Highway 61 heading back towards Highway 89. The pursuit ended in Beltrami County at approximately 5:30 p.m., as the pursuit approached Highway 89, when one of the pursuing officers executed a P.I.T. maneuver that caused Defendant s car to spin out and come to a stop. While Defendant s vehicle was stopped, Deputy Hart parked his vehicle on the side of Defendant s car to attempt to pin it in. Deputy Hart then exited his vehicle and approached the passenger side of Defendant s car. As he did so, Defendant put his car in reverse and struck Deputy Hart in an apparent attempt to flee. After Defendant s car struck Deputy Hart, SA Dudley, who had arrived on the scene in time to see Defendant s car begin to reverse, maneuvered his SUV to block Defendant s car in. Defendant was then arrested. After Defendant was arrested, he was transported to a local emergency room for a blood draw and then to the Beltrami County Sheriff s Office. At approximately 9:30 p.m. that same evening, FBI Special Agent Jonathan Tjernagel ( SA Tjernagel ) and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Special Agent Ricky Wuori, Jr., ( SA Wuori ) interviewed Defendant in an interview room inside the Beltrami County Sheriff s Office. Both SA Tjernagel and SA Wuori were dressed in plain clothes. SA Wuori was armed but he testified at the motions hearing 6
7 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 7 of 22 that he did not recall whether his weapon was displayed. The agents made both audio and video recordings of the interview, which lasted approximately fifty-three (53) minutes. During the interview, SA Wuori detected a faint odor of alcohol coming from Defendant. To SA Wuori, however, Defendant did not appear to be intoxicated. Defendant appeared to understand SA Wuori s questions and be able to respond appropriately to those questions. SA Wuori also had no problems understanding Defendant. Neither of the agents made any threats or promises to Defendant to get him to answer their questions. The agents began the interview by confirming Defendant s name and reading Defendant the Miranda warnings. 2 (Id. at 2-3). The following exchange occurred: But ah, being you re in handcuffs, and you were arrested by police officers, okay, you have what s called the Miranda rights. Right (inaudible) Yup. Yes. You may have heard it before but procedure is doing everything I have to go over it and then whatever you decide after we talk that s totally your call. Okay. Okay. You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? And just so we can speak up, I don t yell but my ears I got kids that yell all the time so you have the right to remain silent. Do you understand? Yes. Okay. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. Do you understand? Yes. 2 The Court s statement of facts regarding the interview is drawn from a transcript of the recording of the interview that was submitted as Government s Exhibit 1 without objection by Defendant. Typically, the Court draws its statement of facts regarding a custodial interview directly from an audio or audio/visual recording of an interview rather than a mere transcript. Although the Government indicated at the motions hearing that it was submitting an audio recording of the interview on a computer disk into evidence as Government s Exhibit 2, the computer disk on which the recording was purported to be stored does not actually contain an audio recording of the interview, but rather other document files. Because the Government represented at the motions hearing that Government s Exhibit 2 contained only a digital copy of the audio recording of the interview, it is not apparent to the Court whether Defendant would have made any objections to the actual contents of the submitted computer disk. Accordingly, the Court has examined the contents of Government s Exhibit 2 only to the extent necessary to determine that none of the electronic documents included thereon are the actual audio recording mentioned by the Government at the motions hearing. The Court has not relied on the documents contained on the computer disk in making its findings of fact or conclusions of law with regard to the motions presently before the Court in the above-captioned matter. 7
8 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 8 of 22 You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have a lawyer present now or at any time during questioning. Do you understand? Yes. If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you without cost. Do you understand? Yes. Do you understand at any point in time you can exercise these rights and refuse to answer any questions? Yes. Yeah. Nodin do you understand each of these rights I ve explained to you? Yes. Okay. Is it okay if we talk about what happened here tonight? Sure. (Id. at 2-3). The agents then began asking Defendant questions about the incident at the Buffalo residence and the subsequent police chase, to which Defendant responded. (Id. at 3-29). At some point after the midway point of the interview, the following exchange occurred: Is there any way I can speak to an attorney tonight? If you want to right now we can ah, we can stop that ah, and to get you to a phone. Mmm I would prefer to speak in person. Okay. Well it ll take some time but they can like the rights I read to you says you have the right to talk to an attorney now or at any time during questioning, you remember that so if you wanna invoke that It s not about questioning I need an attorney. Yes. So what I would like to understand do you want an attorney you wanna talk to an attorney before we go any further? 8
9 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 9 of 22 No that s fine. So you don t wanna... I just need to be clear? Not right now. I I (inaudible). You don t want one? I need to talk to an attorney yes. You wanna speak to an attorney in the future? Yes. Okay um at this point in time do you want an attorney? At this time no because I (inaudible). Okay. And you understand that you do have that right if you want an attorney... I just wanna make sure that we re clear okay? Yes. Okay so you re not... (Inaudible) determine that I m not gonna say anything that can and will be used against me and I have a right to an attorney and if I can t afford one, one will be appointed for me. Okay so you understand all that and right now you do not want an attorney correct? Yes. Okay. Not right now later on. In the process down the road I guess is the way I understand it... Yeah. (Id. at 29-30). 9
10 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 10 of 22 The agents then returned to questioning Defendant about the events at the Buffalo residence and the police chase that followed. (Id. at 30-41). After approximately fifty-three minutes, the agents terminated the interview. II. DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER CHARGING. [Docket No. 25] Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the Indictment against him. Defendant contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the actions for which he has been charged in the Indictment and that the Indictment does not charge a federal offense. A. Standard of Review Pursuant to section 3231, federal district courts possess original jurisdiction over all violations of federal law. United States v. Hayes, 574 F.3d 460, 472 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Watson, 1 F.3d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)). To determine whether a court has jurisdiction over an offense charged in an indictment, the court must determine whether the indictment sufficiently alleges a violation of the laws of the United States. Id. B. Analysis The Indictment in the present case charges Defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) and 111(b). In pertinent part, 18 U.S.C. 111 sets forth: In general.--whoever (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;... shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault..., be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. 10
11 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 11 of U.S.C. 111(a). 18 U.S.C designates the persons who are protected under 18 U.S.C. 111, as: [A]ny officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government... while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance[.] 18 U.S.C The Indictment alleges that, on or about August 8, 2015, Beltrami County Deputy Hart was assisting FBI SA Dudley and Red Lake Officer Petschl in the performance of their official federal duties when he was struck by Defendant s car. (Indictment, [Docket No. 14]). Defendant contends, however, that Deputy Hart was engaged in purely local law enforcement functions when he was struck, and that the fact that the chase began on the Reservation and initially involved a Red Lake Police officer does not support the allegations in the Indictment because Red Lake Police officers are not federal officers. (Def. s Memorandum in Support of Motions, [Docket No. 32], 3-4). The pertinent case law does not support Defendant s arguments. The Eighth Circuit has explained: The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau), is charged with providing or assisting in the provision of law enforcement services on Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. 2802(a). In connection with this responsibility, the Secretary may charge [Bureau] employees with a broad range of law enforcement powers. United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1350 (8th Cir.1993); 25 U.S.C In addition to utilizing Bureau employees, [t]he Secretary may enter into an agreement for the use... of the personnel or facilities of a Federal, tribal, State, or other government agency to assist in the provision of law enforcement services in Indian Country. 25 U.S.C. 2804(a). The Secretary may authorize an officer of the agency contemplated by such an agreement to perform any activity the Secretary may authorize under section Id. When acting under such authority, a person who is not otherwise a Federal employee shall be considered to be an employee of the Department of the 11
12 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 12 of 22 Interior for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 111 and Schrader, 10 F.3d at 1350 (quoting 25 U.S.C. 2804(f)). United States v. Roy, 408 F.3d 484, 489 (8th Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit has thus held that an agreement between a tribe and the BIA that delegates to a tribe the BIA s law enforcement authority requires that tribal police officers be considered federal officers when the tribal police officers are acting in the scope of their law-enforcement duties. E.g., United States v. Janis, 810 F.3d 595, 597 (8th Cir. 2016); Roy, 408 F.3d at 489; United States v. Young, 85 F.3d 334, 335 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1350 (8th Cir. 1993) 3. [T]o constitute a proper delegation, the contract need only be an agreement for the use... of the personnel or facilities of a Federal, tribal, State, or other government agency to aid in law enforcement in Indian Country and authorize that agency to perform some law enforcement activity that the Secretary could authorize the Bureau to perform under section Roy, 408 F.3d at 490 (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2803, edits in Roy). At the hearing, the Government presented evidence that, in the mid-1990s, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians entered into an agreement with the BIA, through which the Tribe took on the BIA s law enforcement duties on the Reservation. The Government also presented evidence that the source of the authority for the Tribes law enforcement powers is the BIA, and 3 In Schrader, the Eighth Circuit detailed the origin of such agreements: In 1990, Congress passed the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C , to clarify and strengthen the authority of the law enforcement personnel and functions within the [BIA]. S.Rep. No. 167, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 712, 712. Under that Act, the Secretary of Interior may charge BIA employees with a broad range of law enforcement powers. See 25 U.S.C In addition, the Secretary may contract with a tribe to assist BIA in enforcing tribal laws and, in connection with such a contract, may authorize a tribal law enforcement officer to perform any activity the Secretary may authorize under section U.S.C. 2804(a). Schrader, 10 F.3d at Such contracts are commonly known as 638 contracts, named for the public law number of the 1975 [Indian Self Determination] Act. Schrader, 10 F.3d at
13 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 13 of 22 that the BIA provides both funding and standards for reservation law enforcement. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the mid-1990s agreement between the Tribe and BIA delegated the BIA s law enforcement authority for crimes on the Reservation to the Tribe, such that Red Lake police officers are federal officers for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 111, when they are engaged in performing their law enforcement duties. E.g., Janis, 810 F.3d at 597; Roy, 408 F.3d at 489; Young, 85 F.3d at 335; Schrader, 10 F.3d at In addition, Defendant s argument overlooks the clear and direct involvement of Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Dudley in the pursuit at issue here. The pursuit began as a result of an allegedly armed assault on the Reservation. The FBI resident agency at which SA Dudley is stationed is responsible for investigating violent crimes, including assaults, on the Reservation, and SA Dudley s jurisdiction extends to the territorial boundaries of the United States. Further, like Officer Petschl, SA Dudley at no time abandoned the pursuit of Defendant after it began on the Reservation, which was related to and arose from Officer Dow s investigating the original alleged crime at the Buffalo residence. Accordingly, the pursuit of Defendant from its inception involved not one, but two federal officers. Defendant goes on to argue, however, that Deputy Hart was merely performing his own local law enforcement duties by pursuing Defendant, and that he was not assisting the federal officers. The Fifth Circuit considered a similar argument in United States v. Smith, 296 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2002). In Smith, an Irving, Texas, police officer responded to a call reporting a bank robbery and began pursuing the robbers. Id. at 345. As the officer approached, one of the robbers fired at him, causing him to retreat. Id. Two Dallas police officers then took over the pursuit. Id. The robbers fired on those officers, eventually disabling their vehicle and prompting two other Dallas police officers, Kenney Lopez and Percy Trimble, and two FBI agents, D. Richard 13
14 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 14 of 22 Burkhead and Christy Jones, who had joined the chase in the interim, to take over the pursuit. Id. at During the pursuit, the robbers ambushed Officers Lopez and Trimble, and disabled their car. Id. at 346. The robbers were eventually apprehended by other Dallas Police officers, including Mike Walton, at whom the robbers had also fired a number of shots. Id. at 346. The robbers were ultimately convicted of a number of charges, including for the relevant purposes of the present motion, three counts of attempted murder in violation of 18 U.S.C for shooting at Officers Lopez, Trimble, and Walton. 4 On appeal, the robbers challenged their convictions for attempted murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1114, arguing that Officers Lopez, Trimble, and Walton had not been assisting federal officers when the robbers had fired upon them. Id. The Fifth Circuit concluded that Officers Lopez, Trimble, and Walton had been assisting the federal agents, reasoning that a federal investigation had commenced by the time that the FBI agents had joined the other officers pursuit of the robbers, and that those other officers were then assisting the FBI agents by jointly pursuing suspects in what had become a federally investigated robbery. Id. at The Court finds the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Smith, 296 F.3d 344, persuasive and sees no material distinction between the joint pursuit of the suspects in the federally investigated robbery in Smith and Deputy Hart s joint pursuit of Defendant with SA Dudley and Red lake Officer Petschl for Defendant s suspected involvement in a federally investigated crime in this case. 6 4 The robbers were not charged under 18 U.S.C for the shots they fired at the officers who had been in pursuit before the FBI agents joined it. Smith, 296 F.3d at Cf. United States v. Reed, 375 F.3d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (concluding that Dallas Police officer had not been assisting FBI agent who had only traveled to the scene where the shots had been fired at the Dallas Police officer as part of the post-arrest investigation). 6 In fact, in the present case, Deputy Hart only became involved in the pursuit of Defendant because of SA Dudley s direct request for assistance in the pursuit of Defendant which SA Dudley made to Deputy Hart s department. 14
15 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 15 of 22 Based on all of the foregoing, the Court recommends DENYING Defendant s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Charging, [Docket No. 25]. III. DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS, ADMISSIONS, AND ANSWERS, [DOCKET NO. 24] Defendant also moves the Court to suppress the statements he made while being interviewed by SA Wuori and SA Tjernagel during the interview later on August 8, (Def. s Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24]). In his moving papers, Defendant generally asserted that the statements should be suppressed because the agents did not provide him with a full Miranda warning, and because Defendant did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. A. Standard of Review [Miranda] prohibits the government from introducing into evidence statements made by the defendant during a custodial interrogation unless the defendant has been previously advised of his [F]ifth [A]mendment privilege against self-incrimination and right to an attorney. United States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 445 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). Accordingly, Miranda warnings are required for official interrogations where a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way[.] Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322 (1994) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444). C. Analysis In Defendant s brief in support of his motions, he offers no specific fact-based argument as to why the statements he made during the August 8, 2015, interview should be suppressed. As the moving party, Defendant bears the burden of proving that the evidence he seeks to have suppressed was obtained by unlawful means. United States v. Edwards, 563 F. Supp. 2d 977,
16 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 16 of 22 (D. Minn. 2008), aff d sub nom United States v. Bowie, 618 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2010). As such, the Court would be well warranted in recommending that Defendant s motion be summarily denied on the basis that Defendant has failed to meet his burden of production. United States v. Jones, 2009 WL , at *4 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2009) (citing United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Quiroz, 57 F. Supp. 2d 805, (D. Minn. 1999), adopted by 57 F. Supp. 2d 805, 811 (D. Minn. 1999)). Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court addresses the merits of Defendant s general assertions that his August 8, 2015, statements should be suppressed. Jones, 2009 WL , at *4 (citing Edwards, 563 F. Supp. 2d at 995). 1. Sufficient Miranda Warning Defendant first asserts that his waivers of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel were not knowingly and voluntarily made because he did not receive a complete Miranda warning. With regard to the adequacy of provided Miranda warnings, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained: The four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, but this Court has not dictated the words in which the essential information must be conveyed.... In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the four warnings, we have said, reviewing courts are not required to examine the words employed as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conve[y] to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda. Duckworth[ v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 201 (1989)] (quoting Prysock, 453 U.S., at 361, 101 S.Ct. 2806). Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 60 (2010) (internal citations omitted). Miranda requires that, prior to any questioning, a suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised that: [1] he has the right to remain silent, [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and 16
17 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 17 of 22 [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479. In addition, in Duckworth, the U.S. Supreme clarified that the right to the presence of attorney referred to in Miranda requires that the suspect be informed that he has the right to an attorney before and during questioning[.] Id., 492 U.S. at 204. At the beginning of the interview, SA Wuori informed (1) that he had the right to remain silent; (2) that anything he said can be used against him in court; (3) that he had the right to talk to an attorney and to have an attorney present during the interview or at any time during questioning; and (4) that a lawyer would be appointed for him if he could not afford one. The only significant difference between SA Wuori s reading of the Miranda warnings and the Miranda rights as described in Miranda itself, is that SA Wuori did not inform Defendant that his statements could be used against him in a court of law. The Court does not find the omission of the words of law to be a significant deviation from the prescribed Miranda warnings on the facts of the present case. See Buckingham v. Symmes, No. 11-CV-2489 PJS/SER, 2013 WL , at *11 (D. Minn. Sept. 6, 2013) (Miranda warnings do not need to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision). Accordingly, SA Wuori s reading of the Miranda warnings reasonably conveyed to Defendant the substance of his rights under Miranda. 2. Waivers Defendant also challenges the validity of his waiver of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. In the present case, SA Wuori informed Defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to have counsel present at the beginning of the interview. When asked if he understood those rights, Defendant expressly indicated that he had. An express written or oral statement of waiver of the right to remain silent or of the right to counsel is usually strong proof of the validity of that waiver, but is not inevitably either 17
18 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 18 of 22 necessary or sufficient to establish waiver. N. Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 (U.S. 1979). The validity of a Miranda waiver requires consideration of two distinct inquiries, namely whether the waiver was voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception[,] and whether the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476, 483 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986)). The government has the burden of proving the validity of the Miranda waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Haggard, 368 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2004). 1. Voluntariness Courts assess whether a waiver of the rights described in a Miranda warning was made voluntarily by considering the conduct of law enforcement officials and the suspect s capacity to resist any pressure. United States v. Contreras, 372 F.3d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 2004). The United States Supreme Court has previously explained that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to... finding that a confession is not voluntary, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986), and the Eighth Circuit has read that holding to mean that police coercion is a necessary prerequisite to a determination that a waiver was involuntary and not as bearing on the separate question whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent. United States v. Turner, 157 F.3d 552, 555 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Bradshaw, 935 F.2d 295, 299 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (emphasis in Turner)). In determining whether a waiver was made voluntarily, a court looks at the totality of the circumstances and must determine whether the individual s will was overborne. United 18
19 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 19 of 22 States v. Syslo, 303 F.3d 860, 866 (8th Cir. 2002). In considering the totality of the circumstances, a court reviews whether the statement was extracted by threats, violence, or direct or implied promises, such that the defendant s will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired. United States v. Sanchez, 614 F.3d 876, 883 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). More specifically, [a court] consider[s], among other things, the degree of police coercion, the length of the interrogation, its location, its continuity, and the defendants maturity, education, physical condition, and mental condition. Id. (citing Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 779 (8th Cir. 2004)). Defendant focuses his argument here on whether he had the ability to resist coercive pressures. He, in essence, argues that his capacity to resist coercive pressures was reduced due to alcohol intoxication. The totality of the evidence in the record presently before the Court indicates that while Defendant may have been intoxicated at some point prior to his leaving the Buffalo residence, there is, however, no evidence in the record regarding Defendant s exact blood alcohol content at the time of the interview four hours after Defendant had left the Buffalo residence. Even assuming that Defendant had been and was still intoxicated to some unknown degree at the time of the interview by SA Wuori and SA Tjernagel, evidence that a suspect was intoxicated does not automatically render a confession involuntary. See, e.g., United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783, 788 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding waiver voluntary even when defendant had consumed alcohol along with pain killers, muscle relaxants, and a mixture of cocaine and marijuana several hours before the interrogation, where officers testified that defendant appeared awake and coherent) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Turner, 157 F.3d at (refusing to adopt a per se rule for intoxication). [T]he test is whether these mental 19
20 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 20 of 22 impairments caused the defendant's will to be overborne. United States v. Casal, 915 F.2d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, there is nothing in the record presently before the Court to suggest that the officers engaged in any specific coercive tactics that caused Defendant s will to be overborne during the interview. Indeed, SA Wuori s testimony and the Court s independent review of the transcript of the interview indicate that the agents did not make any promises or threats to Defendant. See United States v. Makes Room, 49 F.3d 410, 415 (8th Cir. 1995) (concluding no coercive tactics were used where, among other things, officers made no threats or promises to the defendant). Further, the interview, which lasted only fifty-three minutes, was also not coercive in its duration. See Id. (noting that interrogation lasting more than two hours was not coercive in duration). Based on the totality of the evidence, there is no basis on which to find that the agents engaged in any coercive tactics or that any possible intoxication caused Defendant s will to be overborne. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant s waiver of his right to remain silent and right to counsel was voluntary. 2. Knowing and Intelligent The Court must also consider whether Defendant s waiver of his rights was knowingly and intelligently made. Vinton, 631 F.3d at 483. The evidence in the record regarding Defendant s understanding of his rights and presence of mind during the interview consists of SA Wouri s testimony and the transcript of the August 8, 2015, interview. SA Wuori testified that Defendant appeared to understand his questions, that Defendant responded appropriately during the interview to SA Wuori s questions, and that SA Wuori had no difficulty understanding Defendant s responses. The transcript of the interview indicates that SA Wuori 20
21 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 21 of 22 initially read Defendant the Miranda warnings and that Defendant at that time plainly indicated that he understood those warnings. In addition, when SA Wuori later attempted to clarify whether Defendant might have actually invoked his right to have counsel present during questioning, the Defendant himself recited a significant portion of the Miranda warnings back to SA Wuori to demonstrate that he understood the scope of his rights. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendant s waiver of his rights in the present case was knowingly and intelligently made. Because Defendant was provided with an adequate Miranda warning and then knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, the Court recommends DENYING Defendant s Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers. [Docket No. 24]. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendant s Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers, [Docket No. 24], be DENIED; and, 2. Defendant s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and for Improper Charging, [Docket No. 25], be DENIED. Dated: March 23, 2016 /s/ Leo I. Brisbois Leo I. Brisbois U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE N O T I C E 21
22 CASE 0:16-cr MJD-LIB Document 36 Filed 03/23/16 Page 22 of 22 Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), A party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge s proposed findings and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition[.] A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c). Under Advisement Date: This Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement 14 days from the date of its filing. If timely objections are filed, this Report and Recommendation will be considered under advisement from the earlier of: (1) 14 days after the objections are filed; or (2) from the date a timely response is filed. 22
Case 3:07-cr KES Document 15 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 3:07-cr-30063-KES Document 15 Filed 08/27/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 10-00320-14-CR-W-DGK ) RAFAEL ZAMORA, ) ) Defendant. ) GOVERNMENT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA03-566 Filed: 18 May 2004 1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements--motion to suppress--miranda warnings- -voluntariness The trial court did not err
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2006 CHAD BARGER, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D04-1565 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed March 24, 2006 Appeal
LEXSEE 2008 U.S. DIST. LEXIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. TYRONE L. TOOLS, JR., Defendant. CR KES
Page 1 LEXSEE 2008 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 49490 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. TYRONE L. TOOLS, JR., Defendant. CR. 07-30109-01-KES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, CENTRAL
Case 3:17-cr SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:17-cr-00431-SI Document 68 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAT QUOC DO, Case No. 3:17-cr-431-SI OPINION AND
Case 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 131 March 25, 2015 41 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT DARNELL BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 201026332; A151157
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 STATE OF MARYLAND BENJAMIN PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1694 September Term, 2016 STATE OF MARYLAND v. BENJAMIN PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ Nazarian, Arthur, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1356 JUNIOR JOSEPH, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 3, 2010 Appeal
Case 3:16-cr JJB-EWD Document 26 05/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:16-cr-00130-JJB-EWD Document 26 05/15/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : CRIMINAL NO. 16-130-JJB-EWD versus : : JORDAN HAMLETT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,570. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Gary L. Clingman, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
A digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda
From Miranda v. Arizona to Howes v. Fields A digest of twenty one (21) significant US Supreme Court decisions interpreting Miranda (1968 2012) In Miranda v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court rendered one of
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cr-00225-CKK Document 26 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STEPHEN JIN-WOO KIM Defendant. CASE NO. 1:10-CR-225
2017 CO 92. The supreme court holds that a translated Miranda warning, which stated that if
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION II STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ) Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Marion County - Hannibal vs. ) Cause No. ) JN, ) Honorable Rachel
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 16, 2016 v No. 328740 Mackinac Circuit Court RICHARD ALLAN MCKENZIE, JR., LC No. 15-003602 Defendant-Appellee.
BALTIMORE CITY SCHOOLS Baltimore School Police Force MIRANDA WARNINGS
MIRANDA WARNINGS This Directive contains the following numbered sections: I. Directive II. Purpose III. Definitions IV. General V. Juveniles VI. Effective Date I. DIRECTIVE It is the intent of the Baltimore
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr KAM-1.
Case: 18-11151 Date Filed: 04/04/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 18-11151 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cr-80030-KAM-1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406 Filed: 1 June 2004 1. Motor Vehicles--driving while impaired--sufficiency of evidence There was sufficient evidence of driving
Follow this and additional works at:
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-22-2016 USA v. Marcus Pough Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
NO Criminal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
NO. 14-3888 Criminal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, vs. JUSTIN JANIS, Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1063-2016 v. : : KNOWLEDGE FRIERSON, : SUPPRESSION Defendant : Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion
Eric O. Johnston, United States Attorney's Office, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff.
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4206325 (N.D.Okla.) Motions, Pleadings and Filings Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLOCKS, HAROLD W. L., Judge of the Superior Court.
2011 WL 921644 (V.I.Super.) Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. PEOPLE OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS,
CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA SONNY ERIC PIERCE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D15-1984
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 31, 2003 v No. 235191 Calhoun Circuit Court CURTIS JOHN-LEE BANKS, LC No. 00-002668-FH Defendant-Appellant.
8:17-cr LSC-SMB Doc # 46 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 81 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:17-cr-00379-LSC-SMB Doc # 46 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 1 of 10 - Page ID # 81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER H. FREEMONT,
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Meiesha SHARP, Defendant.
Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson Reuters. If you wish to check the currency of this case by using KeyCite on Westlaw, you may do so by visiting www.westlaw.com. Slip Copy, 2013 WL 6487499
Case 2:12-cr RJS Document 51 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cr-00261-RJS Document 51 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER vs. RAMON
v No St. Clair Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 337354 St. Clair Circuit Court RICKY EDWARDS, LC No. 16-002145-FH
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 28, 2017 v No. 335272 Ottawa Circuit Court MAX THOMAS PRZYSUCHA, LC No. 16-040340-FH Defendant-Appellant.
Follow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
EVAN BARK, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 5, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETECTIVE
The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, EMANUEL ANTONIO PATTERSON DOB: 04/26/1993 1252 Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J.
DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAMURA, C.J. I respectfully dissent. Although the standard of review for whether police conduct constitutes interrogation is not entirely clear, it appears that Hawai i applies
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 19, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY W. MEEKS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 3948 Buddy Perry,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2012 v No. 301461 Kent Circuit Court JEFFREY LYNN MALMBERG, LC No. 10-003346-FC Defendant-Appellant.
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE DATE: MARCH 1, 2013 NUMBER: SUBJECT: RELATED POLICY: ORIGINATING DIVISION: 4.03 LEGAL ADMONITION PROCEDURES N/A INVESTIGATIONS II NEW PROCEDURE: PROCEDURAL CHANGE:
The Law of Interrogation in North Carolina
The Law of Interrogation in North Carolina Jeff Welty December 2011 1. Voluntariness a. Generally. A suspect s statement is voluntary if it is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice
Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law
Say What?! A Review of Recent U.S. Supreme Court 5 th Amendment Self-incrimination Case Law POPPI RITACCO Attorney Advisor / Senior Instructor State and Local Training Division Federal Law Enforcement
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 24, 2012 v No. 302037 Oakland Circuit Court ROBERT JOSEPH MCMAHON, LC No. 2010-233010-FC Defendant-Appellant.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1749.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, Appellant, v. SNEED, Appellee. : : : : :
Court of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-1731.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100413 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBIN R. HALL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
CASE 0:17-cr DSD-FLN Document 44 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:17-cr-00252-DSD-FLN Document 44 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Criminal No. 17-252 (DSD/FLN) v. Plaintiff, Lawrence Emmanuel
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Mobley, 2014-Ohio-4410.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 26044 v. : T.C. NO. 13CR2518/1 13CR2518/2 CAMERON MOBLEY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. L Trial Court No.
[Cite as State v. Kohli, 2004-Ohio-4841.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-03-1205 Trial Court No. CR-2002-3231 v. Jamey
v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:
County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse, Room 160 520 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80204 Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: *****
The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, KENNETH WALTER LILLY DOB: 06/22/1987 165 WESTERN AVE NORTH #500 ST PAUL, MN 55102 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, TYREL LAMAR PATTERSON DOB: 04/13/1989 1818 BRYANT AVE N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. Prosecutor File No. Court File No. District
No. 09SA375, People v. Ferguson: Fifth Amendment -- Miranda advisement -- voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
2017 CO 100. In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court concludes that the conversation
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010 ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1978 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2010 Appeal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : No. 509 CR 2014 : APRIL MAE BANAVAGE, : Defendant : Criminal Law - Driving under the
No. 67,103. [November 12, 1987
CORRECTED OPINION No. 67,103 ROBERT JOE LONG, Appellant, VS. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [November 12, 1987 PER CURIAM. Robert Joe Long appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GERRILYN G. BRILL, United States Magistrate Judge.
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 4479211 (N.D.Ga.) Motions, Pleadings and Filings Judges and Attorneys Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr EAK-MAP-1.
USA v. Iseal Dixon Doc. 11010182652 Case: 17-12946 Date Filed: 07/06/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-12946 Non-Argument Calendar
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY POLICE NO. : 18-023670 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095444810 OCN: STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) ) DAMYON D. COOK ) 1625 Cinnabar Dr. ) CASE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS. 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. 08CRSXXXXX STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vs. SP MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, Defendant, SP, by and through
NUMBER CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-15-00089-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ROBERTO SAVEDRA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Jackson August 7, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Jackson August 7, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARIA A. DILLS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dickson County No. CR7695
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 10, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-1796 Lower Tribunal No. 12-3833 The State of
Court of Common Pleas
Motion No. 4570624 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... March 7, 201714:10 By: SEAN KILBANE 0092072 Confirmation Nbr.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Hickory McCoy appeals from the district court s order
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 23, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The State of New Hampshire. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRAFFORD, SS. SUPERIOR COURT The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS The defendant is charged with one count
3:00 A.M. THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL
THE MAGISTRATE THE JUVENILE THE STATEMENT KEEPING IT LEGAL Kameron D. Johnson E:mail Kameron.johnson@co.travis.tx.us Presented by Ursula Hall, Judge, City of Houston 3:00 A.M. Who are Magistrates? U.S.
No. 112,329 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant. vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee
FLED No. 112,329 JAN 14 2015 HEATHER t. SfvilTH CLERK OF APPELLATE COURTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellant vs. NORMAN C. BRAMLETT Defendant-Appellee BRIEF
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL CIVITELLA v. Appellant No. 353 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRYL J. LEINART, II Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. A3CR0294 James
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2068 September Term, 2015 TIMOTHY LEE MERCER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Kehoe, Shaw Geter, JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: September
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS. DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion 1. The Defendant is charged with driving under the influence, possession of marijuana---small amount, and
Miranda Rights. Interrogations and Confessions
Miranda Rights Interrogations and Confessions Brae and Nathan Agenda Objective Miranda v. Arizona Application of Miranda How Subjects Apply Miranda Miranda Exceptions Police Deception Reflection Objective
CASE 0:16-cv JRT-LIB Document 26 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-01797-JRT-LIB Document 26 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Leigh Harper, Court File No. 16-cv-1797 (JRT/LIB) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 333827 Kent Circuit Court JENNIFER MARIE HAMMERLUND, LC
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0084, State of New Hampshire v. Andrew Tulley, the court on April 26, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record
2009 VT 75. No On Appeal from v. District Court of Vermont, Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit. Michael M. Christmas March Term, 2009
State v. Christmas (2008-303) 2009 VT 75 [Filed 24-Jul-2009] NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
ANTHONY T. ALSTON OPINION BY v. Record No CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTLH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices ANTHONY T. ALSTON OPINION BY v. Record No. 012348 CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO November 1, 2002 COMMONWEALTLH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA The question
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVID WEINGRAD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-0446 [September 27, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv LC-EMT
[DO NOT PUBLISH] ROGER A. FESTA, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-11526 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-00140-LC-EMT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2015 v No. 327393 Wayne Circuit Court ROKSANA GABRIELA SIKORSKI, LC No. 15-001059-FJ Defendant-Appellee.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : CR-89-2017 : JORDAN RAWLS, : Defendant : Omnibus Pretrial Motion OPINION AND ORDER Defendant, Jordan
Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: May 5, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-000790-MR WARD CARLOS HIGHTOWER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAMELA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO. The indictment
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS * CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHTO THE STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, :VS- JAMES SPARKS-HENDERSON Defendant. ) ) JUDGE JOHN P. O'DONNELL ) ) JUDGMENT ENTRY DENYING ) THE DEFENDANT S ) MOTION
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL 2/01/2008 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. State of New Hampshire. Howard Simpson 02-S-1896 ORDER
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROCKINGHAM, SS. SUPERIOR COURT State of New Hampshire v. Howard Simpson 02-S-1896 ORDER This order addresses defendant s motions to suppress incriminating evidence and statements
The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ANTHONY LAMONT FOOTE DOB: 08/05/1992 608 SELBY AVE #4 St. Paul, MN 55101 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
Case 4:08-cv SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case 4:08-cv-00364-SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION BRETT DARROW, Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. Cause No.
v No Macomb Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 17, 2017 v No. 332830 Macomb Circuit Court ANGELA MARIE ALEXIE, LC No.
KAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district
626 OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus KAUPP v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district No. 02 5636. Decided May 5, 2003 After petitioner Kaupp, then 17,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2006 v No. 259193 Washtenaw Circuit Court ERIC JOHN BOLDISZAR, LC No. 02-001366-FC Defendant-Appellant.
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-904 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DAMON BROESKE FRYE ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY POLICE NO. : 17-105251 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095442954 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) HOWARD TYRONE NEELY ) 3309 E 51st Street, ) Kansas
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. In this appeal of a judgment from the Court of Appeals, we consider whether a
PRESENT: All the Justices FRANCISCO JAVIER GARCIA TIRADO OPINION BY v. Record No. 170458 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN August 9, 2018 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this
In this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considers whether the district court
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 16, 2001 v No. 214253 Oakland Circuit Court TIMMY ORLANDO COLLIER, LC No. 98-158327-FC Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Worley, 2011-Ohio-2779.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94590 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. PEREZ WORLEY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:17-cr-00379-LSC-SMB Doc # 45 Filed: 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 73 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER FREEMONT,
Case 1:10-cr SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cr-00136-SS Document 17 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUSTIN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. CAUSE NO. A-10-CR-136 (SS) PAUL EDWARD COPELAND GOVERNMENT S RESPONSE
INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT
INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS AT A GLANCE COURTESY COMMAND LEVEL TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2015 PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT NOTES INVESTIGATIVE ENCOUNTERS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN TERRY v. OHIO (1968)