Filed: Dec. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendant Farah Isaac is charged with failing to file a currency transaction report in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5331(a) and 5324(b)(1). He has moved to suppress statements made during questioning, alleging that his Miranda rights were violated. Doc. 25. The Court will deny the motion. Defendant's motion is based on the fact that he was given Miranda warnings upon his arrest at about 11:45 a.m., but was not questioned until four hours later. Defend
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendant Farah Isaac is charged with failing to file a currency transaction report in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5331(a) and 5324(b)(1). He has moved to suppress statements made during questioning, alleging that his Miranda rights were violated. Doc. 25. The Court will deny the motion. Defendant's motion is based on the fact that he was given Miranda warnings upon his arrest at about 11:45 a.m., but was not questioned until four hours later. Defenda..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendant Farah Isaac is charged with failing to file a currency transaction report in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5331(a) and 5324(b)(1). He has moved to suppress statements made during questioning, alleging that his Miranda rights were violated. Doc. 25. The Court will deny the motion.
Defendant's motion is based on the fact that he was given Miranda warnings upon his arrest at about 11:45 a.m., but was not questioned until four hours later. Defendant argues that he should have been given new warnings prior to the questioning. As the government notes, however, law enforcement officers are not required to repeat Miranda warnings simply because of the passage of time. See United States v. Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d 1118, 1127-28 (9th Cir.), amended, 416 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2005) (officers not required to re-advise the defendant of his Miranda rights before a second day of questioning, despite a 16 hour break, a change of one interrogator, and a change of location); People of Guam v. Dela Pena, 72 F.3d 767, 769 (9th Cir. 1995) (15 hour interval; "We hold that statements made by a defendant during custodial interrogation are not rendered inadmissible simply because the police fail to repeat Miranda warnings previously given to the defendant when he was not in custody.").
Defendant has not pointed to any circumstances which suggest the effectiveness of his earlier Miranda warnings was diminished by the passage of four hours. Rodriguez-Preciado, 399 F.3d at 1129. Defendant was held at a police station in a cell with water and a toilet, and was questioned in an video-equipped room by two officers. Before the questioning began, one of the officers said "you remember we read you your rights before. Remember your rights?" Doc. 29 at 4. Defendant responded "yeah." Id. The officers promptly terminated the questioning a few minutes later when Defendant requested a lawyer. The Court finds nothing in these circumstances that warrants suppression of statements made during the questioning.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Doc. 29) is denied.
