UNITED STATES' 1) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (DKT 11); 2) MOTION TO DISMISS; AND 3) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND

Defendant filed a motion to suppress on November 29, 2018. Dkt. 11 (the Motion). The Motion argued that: 1) all evidence gathered at a traffic stop on June 14, 2018 should be suppressed, because the there was no reasonable suspicion for officers to stop the vehicle, Dkt. 11 at 4-5; 2) that statements Defendant made during the search of the vehicle should be suppressed because of a Miranda violation; and 3) because the statements were coerced. Dkt. 11 at 5-10.

The United States did not receive notice that Defendant had filed the Motion (or an Order to Show Cause issued by the Court concerning the Motion) until December 30, 2018. Dkt. 14 at 2; Dkt. 17 at 3. The United States requested, and the Court ultimately granted, the United States until January 7, 2019 to respond. Dkt. 17.

Upon reviewing the Motion, the United States set about investigating the factual and legal basis underlying the traffic stop in question. Counsel for the United States interviewed several law enforcement rangers who participated in the traffic stop and directed a ranger to reduce that information to writing for use in responding to the Motion. See Exhibit 1, Report of Supervisory Park Ranger Chris Trotter. Counsel for the United States also began researching the legal authorities cited in the Motion, as well as other authority regarding claimed Miranda violations occurring in the context of vehicle searches. Counsel for the United States also directed rangers to assess the items of physical evidence seized during the traffic stop to determine if the case could proceed absent defendant's statements.

As a result of its factual and legal research, the United States believes the Motion's Miranda claim has merit. To be clear, the United States does not concede that questioning of the defendant amounted to custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda, for the purposes of this proceeding or any other proceeding. The United States believes it has potentially meritorious arguments on those issues in response to what it believes are the Motion's meritorious arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Coombs, No. CR 08-1253-FRZ-CRP, 2009 WL 3823730, at *7 (D. Ariz. Nov. 12, 2009) (denying suppression of statements made through fifty-six minutes of vehicle stop and search); United States v. Parker, 919 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1080 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (denying suppression of statements made after defendant was asked about contraband found in a motor vehicle search in a national park, albeit much briefer than the search at issue here). Rather, the United States believes that it is not a wise use of prosecutorial resources to proceed further in this case given the meritorious nature of the Miranda claim and the state of evidence independent of any such claim. The United States requests that dismissal be without prejudice in case additional evidence comes to light that is independent of the defendant's statements.

MOTION TO DISMISS

Therefore, the United States hereby moves to dismiss citations 7418104, 7418105, and 7418107 in this matter in the interest of justice without prejudice.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The citations in this matter are dismissed without prejudice in the interest of justice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.