Gordin v. State
2017 Ark. App. 61
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Postal inspector Mickey Schuetzle arranged a fake express-mail delivery of a 3‑lb parcel addressed to Anthony Gordin at a North Little Rock hotel after he discovered a nonexistent return address and other indicia of narcotics trafficking.
- Schuetzle, working undercover with Investigator James Neeley nearby for safety, had Gordin present ID, sign for the parcel, and then identified himself as a postal inspector.
- After signing, Schuetzle asked Gordin in the hotel lobby whether there was anything in the package that could hurt anyone; Gordin replied that it contained marijuana.
- Schuetzle requested consent to open the parcel; Gordin refused and asked for an attorney; officers then detained and transported him, obtained a state search warrant, and the parcel was found to contain marijuana (over 1,000 grams).
- Gordin moved to suppress his statement as the product of a custodial interrogation made without Miranda warnings; the trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gordin was "in custody" when he was asked about the package contents, triggering Miranda. | Gordin: After signing, he was not free to leave because the officer told him to wait and detained him for questioning; Miranda warnings were required. | State: The question was a noncustodial request under Rule 2.2; Gordin was free to ignore and leave until he admitted the parcel contained marijuana. | Court: Not in custody when asked; question permissible under Rule 2.2; Miranda not required for that question. |
| Whether the voluntariness of the statement required suppression because the officer elicited an incriminating response. | Gordin: The officer knowingly asked an incriminating question in a situation that restrained his freedom, rendering the statement involuntary without warnings. | State: Officers may ask questions and request cooperation; Gordin voluntarily answered and his admission supplied probable cause. | Court: Statement voluntary; answer transformed the encounter into probable-cause detention—suppression not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. State, 2010 Ark. 431, 371 S.W.3d 677 (Ark. 2010) (officers may approach and ask questions under Rule 2.2; whether an encounter is custodial depends on whether freedom is restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest)
- Fowler v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 232, 459 S.W.3d 837 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; deference to circuit court credibility and totality of circumstances)