TED STEWART, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Dustin Jay Bowman's Motion to Suppress. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion on May 14, 2014. Thereafter, on August 11, 2014, the Court heard oral argument from the parties. Having considered the evidence presented and the arguments made, the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
A large fire occurred at an apartment building construction site in Salt Lake City on February 9, 2014. Due to the size of the fire and the extent of the damage, the National Response Team ("NRT") of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") was involved in the investigation of the blaze. ATF Special Agent David Allen ("Agent Allen") is a member of the NRT and was a participant in the investigation.
Part of Agent Allen's role in the investigation was to conduct interviews with potential witnesses. On February 13, 2014, Agent Allen arranged a meeting with Chris Coons, the lead electrician on the construction site to see if Mr. Coons could identify any of the individuals or vehicles observed in surveillance camera footage from the night of the fire.
Agent Allen met with Mr. Coons in a trailer at the construction site that served as the headquarters for the builder of the apartment building. Although Agent Allen merely requested to meet with Mr. Coons, the Defendant in this case — Dustin Bowman — also attended the meeting. Agent Allen showed Mr. Coons and Defendant still-frame pictures from surveillance video of the construction site. The still frames included several pictures that depicted an individual in a hooded sweatshirt. On two occasions Mr. Coons indicated that the person in the still images looked like the Defendant. Defendant denied being the person in the video.
Later that evening, Defendant sent Agent Allen the following text message: "This is Dustin Bowman. Electrician on new house construction site. Does your phone accept text? Can I meet with you on site Saturday at 7:00 am? I have information on the video I could not share with you in front of Chris. Please text return if we can meet."
The next day, Agent Allen and Defendant arranged to meet in a Wendy's parking lot near the construction site. Defendant, Agent Allen, and ATF Special Agent Kent Owens met at the Wendy's parking lot shortly after 6:00 pm. At that time,
Defendant drove a work van to the Wendy's restaurant and indicated that he could drive separately to the construction site. The agents communicated their preference that Defendant ride with them in Agent Owens's vehicle as they were attempting to limit traffic near the scene of the fire. Defendant left his vehicle in the Wendy's parking lot and rode to the construction site in the front passenger seat of Agent Owens's vehicle. At the site, Defendant showed the agents where he had entered the perimeter fence and smoked spice next to a Conex lock-box that held the electricians' tools.
At the construction site, Defendant and the agents discussed the timeline of Defendant's arrival and departure from the site the night of the fire. Defendant stated that he had receipts and a public transportation schedule that could confirm his timeline. At that point, the agents indicated that they would like to continue their conversation with Defendant at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building. According to Agent Allen, they wanted to go to the Public Safety Building because "[i]t was very dark and cold and noisy at the fire scene."
Defendant was hesitant to accompany the agents to the Public Safety Building. The agents understood Defendant's hesitance to be related to his status as a drug user. With encouragement from the agents, Defendant agreed to accompany the agents to the Public Safety Building. Defendant and the agents traveled together in Agent Owens's vehicle to the Public Safety Building.
At the Public Safety Building, the agents and Defendant proceeded to an interview room on the third floor. The interview area of the Public Safety Building is considered a secured area. To arrive at the interview room, Defendant and the agents were required to pass through several locked doors. Once they arrived at the interview room Agent Allen stated to Defendant, "hey, so you know, I mean, you — you can walk out that door any time."
The interview room was roughly ten foot by ten foot square, with a table affixed to the wall on one side. Defendant was placed on the far side of the table, with Agent Allen directly across from him at the table and two other officers in the room. Due to the small size of the room, at least one of the officers was directly between Defendant and the door to the interview room.
Defendant's interview at the Public Safety Building began a little before 7:00 p.m. The first stage of the interview was handled by Agent Allen. Defendant was cooperative and expressed a willingness to discuss the night of the fire with Agent Allen. Agent Allen began the interview by asking general questions regarding the night of the fire and establishing a timeline for Defendant's activities that night. Defendant was cooperative and volunteered information.
Agent Allen continued to point out inconsistencies in Defendant's version of events and encourage him to come forward with more information. At first, Defendant claimed that he did not enter the apartment building. Later Defendant admitted to entering the building but claimed that he quickly exited when he heard footsteps upstairs. Agent Allen confronted him on this stating, "there was nobody else in there. There's video all the way around it. And we know the security guard pulled in here and then pulled out, and didn't go in there."
Agent Allen appeared convinced that Defendant had to "do or see something."
Agent Allen eventually decided to take a break and asked the Defendant whether he was doing alright. Defendant responded, "I'm fucked."
Defendant went on to discuss his family and his grandmother whom he was supposed to meet the next day, but whom he now felt he would not be able to meet. Agent Allen then posed the question, "How do you think this is going to turn out?"
At that point, Agent Allen adopted a more aggressive approach. Agent Allen stated such things as: "[Y]ou saw who's out there, right?"
Defendant answered, "I really wish I could give you more information."
From that point in the interview, Agent Allen's questions assumed that Defendant started the fire that consumed the apartment building. Agent Allen asked such things as: "I don't think you were doing it for money. Were you doing it for money?"
Defendant continued to behave very cooperatively but also continued to deny any involvement in the fire. Defendant admitted to entering the apartment building and claimed to have come into the building to look for scrap wire to sell in order to obtain more spice. However, Defendant also continued to assert that he heard footsteps in the building and "as soon as [he] heard more footsteps, [he] left."
After Agent Allen left the room, Defendant asked for a bottle of water. While one of the officers went to track down a bottle of water, Investigator Justin Poarch with the Salt Lake City Fire Marshal's Office entered the interview room. Investigator Poarch took over the next portion of the interview.
Investigator Poarch had a more aggressive interviewing technique than Agent Allen. Throughout the first part of his questioning, Investigator Poarch discussed the alleged evidence and informants he had against Defendant. In Investigator Poarch's words, "If there is anything else you want to talk about in there, I'm giving you the chance.... Plain and simple. Because the evidence that I've got stacked up against you."
Defendant was cooperative and willing to talk throughout Investigator Poarch's portion of the interview; however, Defendant did inform Investigator Poarch that
Investigator Poarch agreed to have Agent Allen brought back to the interview room by stating, "Fair enough. If we bring Dave in here and we talk to Dave, are you — are you okay with filling in the [twenty] percent? And being honest."
Agent Allen returned to the interview room and Investigator Poarch stated,
Defendant responded, "Your [twenty] percent, as far as there being anybody else involved, there was nobody else involved. Nobody asked me to start a fire. Nobody paid me anything."
Investigator Poarch then said, "Let's talk about — let's talk about you smoking your cigarette."
The agents and Defendant then discussed the details of the method Defendant used to burn the insulation off of the fire-alarm wire. Defendant claimed that he used his lighter to start the fire on "[a] little bit of cardboard. And it wasn't working very well, and then just spread way too quick."
Investigator Poarch asked whether it was the insulation that got out of control and Defendant responded that it was "[t]he fire. And I stomped it for a second, and there was nothing I could do. I should have called 911. I was scared. I was high."
After thoroughly discussing how Defendant started the fire, Investigator Poarch asked Defendant to start over and walk him through the process from when Defendant came up the alley and through the gate. Defendant once more recounted how he came through the gate and went to the Conex lock-box to get high. At that point, Mr. Poarch stopped the recount and initiated the following exchange.
Investigator Poarch went on to inquire as to whether Defendant was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. Defendant responded that he smoked some spice before coming in, but the officers determined that Defendant appeared to be alert and aware of the situation. Investigator Poarch asked if after being informed of those rights Defendant still wanted to talk. Defendant indicated that he did.
The agents and Defendant then went through the scenario once more. Investigator Poarch again asked whether Defendant had used an accelerant on the wire to burn the insulation off faster. The Defendant denied the use of any accelerant and stated, "I have nothing else to hide right now. I'm ... [a]t this point ... I'm behind bars and in jail."
The agents continued to question individual details in Defendant's story and indicated that they now had ninety-five percent of the story. Defendant asserted that "[t]he only thing that [he] lied to [the agents] about was the facts that [he] went in the building and the fact that [he] unintentionally lit that fucker up."
It is apparent that, at that juncture, Defendant fully understood the ramifications of his actions and his confession. In response to a question from Investigator Poarch as to whether he had burned down the building to hurt himself or others Defendant stated,
Investigator Poarch then left the interview and a different officer provided Defendant a written version of the Miranda warnings for Defendant's review. The officer also asked Defendant to initial and sign the Miranda warning, which Defendant did. The same officer helped Defendant prepare a written statement reflecting his earlier account of how he started the fire that Defendant also signed. The agents also worked with Defendant to sign a consent form for the officers to search his phone and to recover the boots he wore the night of the fire.
Five hours after meeting the officers and after approximately four hours of questioning, Defendant was arrested and taken to the Salt Lake County Jail for booking.
The next day, February 15, 2014, Agent Allen, ATF Special Agent Paul Claflin, and ATF Special Agent Dixon Robin went to the Salt Lake County Jail to speak with Defendant. Agent Robin led the conversation and began by reading Defendant a full Miranda warning and providing Defendant
The agents and Defendant discussed his account from the night before and Defendant admitted that he did not attempt to burn wire like he had previously stated. Defendant attributed his prior statements to his being "high as a kite" during the interview.
The only reason that Defendant could finally give is that the fire department was there the day before while he was working on the building and, in his altered state Defendant thought that it would be ironic for the fire department to report back out to the building for a fire. In Defendant's words,
A federal complaint was brought against Defendant on February 19, 2014, charging him with one count of Arson Damaging a Building and Real and Personal Property Used in Interstate Commerce, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). An Indictment charging the same was issued on March 5, 2014.
Defendant now seeks "the suppression of all statements and/or confessions made by him to law enforcement officers on February 14 and 15, 2014, as well as any evidence discovered or obtained as a result of those statements."
"The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that `[n]o person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.'"
Defendant bears the burden of proving that his confession was obtained while he was under custodial interrogation.
"The Supreme Court explained in Miranda that an individual is `in custody' if he is `deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'"
The custody determination is "an objective, fact-intensive inquiry that focuses on the totality of the circumstances."
Defendant argues that he was subjected to "an overwhelming police-dominated environment as multiple officers were present in the interview room, sitting between [Defendant] and the door, and many other officers [were] surrounding him in the building."
In determining whether the Defendant was subjected to a police-dominated
Prior case law makes clear that the mere fact that a suspect is questioned in a police building is not determinative of the custody analysis.
Here, Defendant voluntarily initiated contact with Agent Allen and requested to meet with Agent Allen at the scene of the fire. Defendant began his interaction with the officers in a public forum with only two officers present. Agent Allen testified that he and Agent Owens went to meet the Defendant in an unmarked car and that at no point during the interaction with Defendant did the agents engage the emergency lights of the vehicle.
After a short time at the scene of the fire, the agents requested that the conversation be moved to the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building. At the Public Safety Building, Defendant was escorted to an interview room on the third floor. In the interview room, Defendant was usually in the company of at least three officers. Further, the officers within the room rotated out, giving the appearance of a greater number of officers on hand. Defendant was questioned in the same room for over four hours and at the end of the interview, Defendant was arrested and transported to a local jail.
During questioning, Agent Allen attested to the presence of a large number of officers in the Public Safety Building when he asked Defendant, "you saw who's out there, right?"
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that while Defendant's interaction with the agents did not begin in a police-dominated atmosphere, the nature of the interaction changed sufficiently at the Public Safety Building such that Defendant was subjected to a police-dominated encounter.
The second factor looks to the nature and length of the officers' questioning and whether the questioning was accusatory
The agents met Defendant shortly after 6:00 pm. The interview in the Public Safety Building commenced at approximately 7:00 pm and terminated after 11:00 pm with the Defendant's arrest. Thus, the total interaction lasted roughly five hours and the interview at the Public Safety Building represented approximately four hours of that time. In light of the length of the total interaction and more specifically of the interview, the Court finds that the questioning in this case was prolonged.
The accusatory or coercive nature of the agents' questioning is a closer call. The Government argues that the agents' questions were not accusatory or coercive in a way that would make a reasonable person feel unfree to leave. Although this may be true of Agent Allen's questions at the beginning of the interview, the record in this case demonstrates that Agent Allen's questions became more accusatory and coercive over time. Agent Allen began by pointing out inconsistencies in Defendant's version of events and the evidence agents had recovered. Agent Allen then put more pressure on Defendant by focusing on the evidence against Defendant and referencing all of the officers working on the case. Agent Allen later reached a point in his questioning where he appeared to assume that Defendant started the fire and Agent Allen instead focused on why Defendant started the fire.
Investigator Poarch's questions were accusatory and coercive from the outset. Investigator Poarch began his questioning by discussing the supposed evidence and informants he had against Defendant. Investigator Poarch made clear to Defendant that a hundred percent of the liability was on Defendant and he was giving the Defendant one last chance to come clean. When Defendant indicated to Investigator Poarch that he did not want to discuss how he burned the apartment building down Investigator Poarch responded that he needed Defendant to do so. Further, while Investigator Poarch eventually provided Defendant a partial Miranda warning, he did so only after receiving a complete confession from Defendant.
Agent Allen and Investigator Poarch's language, viewed in context over the course of the four-hour interview, appears to have been calculated to coerce Defendant into the resulting confession. In light of the nature and length of Agent Allen and Investigator Poarch's questioning, the Court finds that the interview was sufficiently prolonged, accusatory, and coercive in nature that a reasonable person in Defendant's position would have felt he was effectively under arrest.
Defendant argues that he did not feel free to leave the interview because he was removed from his own vehicle and placed in an isolated interview room in a secure area of the Public Safety Building. The Government contends that "[b]ecause [Defendant] was made aware that he was free to leave, [this] factor weighs against a finding of custody."
"`That a person is told repeatedly that he is free to terminate an interview is powerful evidence that a reasonable person would have understood that he was
Similarly, in Oregon v. Mathiason, the Supreme Court found that an interview was not custodial where a defendant voluntarily came to a police station, "was immediately informed that he was not under arrest," and after a half-hour interview "did in fact leave the police station without hindrance."
Turning to the facts of this case, it is not entirely clear whether Defendant was adequately made aware that he was free to refrain from answering questions or to otherwise end the interview. It is undisputed that Agent Allen began the interview by advising Defendant "hey, so you know, I mean, you — you can walk out that door any time."
Further, as Defendant notes, it is unclear from the record whether a reasonable person in Defendant's position would have realized that he could leave the interview room unassisted. The interview took place in a secured area on the third floor of the Public Safety Building. Defendant was required to pass through locked doors in the company of officers in order to arrive at the interview room. Once in the building, Defendant was accompanied by or in the presence of officers. Additionally, even if Defendant were to leave the Public Safety Building, he would still be without his vehicle, which was left at the Wendy's parking lot. All of these circumstances would lead a reasonable person to doubt their ability to simply leave the interview.
Though not determinative of this issue, several statements made by Defendant throughout the interview call into question the assertion that Defendant felt free to leave the interview. Throughout the interview, Defendant stated his belief that he would be unable to see his family the next day, that he would lose his employment, and that he would likely spend a substantial amount of time in prison. Statements from the questioning officers served to support this belief. Agent Allen asked on multiple occasions what Defendant thought was going to occur as a result of the interview and even went so far as to ask, "do you think we're going to charge with you?"
Finally, the duration and conclusion of the interview undercut the Government's
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that a person in Defendant's position would not have felt that he could terminate the interview or leave the Public Safety Building at any time.
After reviewing the foregoing factors, the Court finds that "[t]his case, in many respects, typifies the situation Miranda was meant to protect."
A finding that Defendant was in custody during the interview at the Public Safety Building does not per se bar the admission of those statements Defendant gave after receiving a Miranda warning. It is undisputed that Defendant provided two confessions after receiving complete Miranda warnings and one confession after receiving a partial Miranda warning. A question that remains is the admissibility of the statements Defendant made after receiving Miranda warnings.
Turning first to the partial Miranda warning given by Investigator Poarch, this Court has held that a partial warning is deficient and insufficient to put Defendant on notice of his rights under Miranda.
Defendant's second Miranda warning came at the close of his interview at the Public Safety Building. After Defendant confessed to lighting the fire and twice discussed the circumstances and his actions in starting the fire with Investigator Poarch and Agent Allen, the officers provided Defendant a written Miranda warning that they asked Defendant to sign. The officers also asked Defendant at that time to supply a written version of his confession. Defendant asked that an officer write the confession and relayed an abbreviated version of the events he had already discussed with Investigator Poarch and Agent Allen.
This factual pattern is not unprecedented. The United States Supreme Court addressed similar two-step interrogation techniques in Oregon v. Elstad
The Court first considered this issue in Elstad. In that case, police officers briefly questioned a burglary suspect in his home prior to transporting him to the police station. The officers did not provide the suspect Miranda warnings. After an hour at the police station, the officers joined the suspect in an office and for the first time provided him Miranda warnings, reading from a standard card. The suspect "indicated he understood his rights, and, having these rights in mind, wished to speak with the officers."
In Seibert, "the police `used a two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of Miranda.' The interrogating officer began questioning the suspect without providing the Miranda warnings; after the suspect confessed, the officer gave the warnings and resumed the questioning to lead the suspect back over the same ground."
"Although the Court held that statements obtained through such a two-step technique are inadmissible, none of the opinions in Seibert received the votes of five Justices."
"These factors, all of which concern the relationship between the first and second interrogations, are intended to aid courts in determining whether an initial, unwarned interrogation operated to `thwart Miranda's purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted.'"
"Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, but on what he described as `narrower' grounds."
"Ordinarily, where `a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.'"
Justice Kennedy's opinion in Seibert may appear to be the position of "those Members who concurred in the judgment[]
While the Tenth Circuit recognized the difficulty of this issue in Carrizales-Toledo, it declined to "determine which opinion reflects the holding of Seibert" because in Carrizales-Toledo the defendant's statements "would be admissible under the tests proposed by the plurality and by the concurring opinion."
In the instant case, the admissibility of Defendant's written confession turns on which of the opinions reflects the proper holding of Seibert. Defendant's written confession, provided during the latter part of his interview on February 14, 2014, bears many similarities to the confession at issue in Seibert. The five factors out-lined by the plurality highlight these similarities.
First, Agent Allen and Investigator Poarch were exhaustive and complete in the detail of the questions and answers they obtained from Defendant prior to advising him of his Miranda rights. Unlike Elstad — where the officers asked a few general questions at the suspect's home before taking him to the station — here the officers spent multiple hours inquiring into the specific details regarding Defendant's conduct giving rise to the offense. Second, the content of the written confession mirrored Defendant's pre-Miranda statements. Indeed, the written confession was treated as a summary or recitation of the earlier statements. Third, as in Seibert, both confessions were obtained in the same interview room. In this instance, Defendant was not even allowed a break prior to being asked to sign the Miranda warnings and provide a written account of his confession. The fourth factor is the only factor that cuts against a finding that Defendant's midstream Miranda warning was ineffective. The written Miranda warnings were administered by an officer that had been present in the interview room during the interview but who had not directed the questioning of Defendant previously. The same officer recorded the written confession. The fifth factor is particularly on point, as the officers and Defendant both treated the creation of the written statement as continuous with Defendant's earlier verbal confession.
The majority of these factors support a finding that the officers' provision of the written Miranda warning was ineffective. Thus, under the test set out by the plurality in Seibert, the Court finds that the unwarned interrogation "operated to `thwart Miranda's purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted'"
On the other hand, under the subjective test proposed by Justice Kennedy, it is likely that the confession would be admissible. There is no direct evidence in the record that the officers intended to use the
Here, Defendant is an adult and while there is no evidence in the record as to Defendant's education, he is gainfully employed in a skilled profession, that of an electrician. Based on Defendant's answers to the questions posed during the interview, he does not appear to suffer from any intellectual deficiencies. The detention was moderately long, lasting over four hours. The questions posed at times were aggressive, however, the overall tone of the interview was cooperative and Defendant was not verbally abused. Defendant was eventually advised of his constitutional rights and was not subjected to physical punishment in any form.
Defendant was cooperative and willing to engage throughout the interview. Though the length of the interview in combination with the nature of the questioning gives rise to some concern, the Court finds that Defendant's second confession was voluntarily given. Therefore, under the test set out in Justice Kennedy's opinion, the Court finds that Defendant's written confession would be admissible.
Because of these differing results, the resolution of Defendant's Motion requires a determination as to which test from Seibert the Court should apply. In a recent opinion of this Court — United States v. Archuleta
The remaining issue is the admissibility of Defendant's statements made in the Salt Lake County Jail on February 15th. The officers who questioned Defendant at the jail began by advising Defendant of his Miranda rights. Because the Miranda warning came after Defendant had confessed during the interview of the preceding night, the Court once more must determine whether the "initial, unwarned interrogation operated to `thwart Miranda's purpose of reducing the risk that a coerced confession would be admitted.'"
As discussed above, the first factor cuts against the Government because the unwarned interrogation resulted in a complete
Third, the timing and setting are distinct. The jail interrogation occurred the day after the unwarned interrogation and the interviews took place in different locations. Fourth, the only constant in the continuity of police personnel was Agent Allen. The two other officers that attended the jail interview were other agents from ATF who disclaimed involvement in the interview of the night before. Further, while Agent Allen was present during the jail interview, he did not lead, nor was he heavily involved in the questioning.
The fifth factor addresses the degree to which the interrogators' questions treated the jail interview as continuous with the unwarned interview in the Public Safety Building. Agent Robin began the jail interview by indicating to Defendant that he and Agent Claflin "are scene guys."
Balancing the foregoing factors, the Court finds that the unwarned interrogation did not act to thwart the purposes of the Miranda warning provided by the agents prior to the jail interview. While subjectively Defendant may have felt constrained by the statements made the night before, the Court finds that an objective person in Defendant's position would have understood the effect of the Miranda warnings provided by the Agents prior to questioning Defendant at the Salt Lake County Jail.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion as to the statements and written confession provided by Defendant at the Public Safety Building and deny Defendant's Motion as to the statements made as a result of interrogation at the Salt Lake County Jail. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Docket No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
