United States v. Ambrose, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3014

Ambrose, a Deputy U.S. Marshal, was charged by indictment with theft of government property and unauthorized disclosure concerning a WITSEC witness, Nick Calabrese.
The government sought to suppress Ambrose’s pre-Miranda statements, asserting custodial interrogation without warnings occurred during an interview with FBI officials Fitzgerald and Grant.
The case centered on whether Ambrose leaked WITSEC information to Calabrese’s mob connections and, if so, the extent of the disclosure.
During the investigation, Calabrese’s WITSEC file and related notes were the subject of custodial access and potential leaks, triggering a security-based interview plan.
To confront Ambrose with evidence and gain cooperation, the government arranged a two-stage interview in the FBI building, involving a security-focused setting and multiple officials, followed by a later, Miranda-warned interview with case agents.
The district court denied the suppression motion, and Ambrose was tried on Counts 1 and 2 (theft and disclosure) and Counts 3 and 4 (false statements), with a four-year sentence on each count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ambrose’s statements to Fitzgerald and Grant were admissible without Miranda warnings.	Ambrose’s statements resulted from custodial interrogation.	The initial interview was custodial and unwarned; tainted later statements.	Yes, interrogation occurred; but later statements were admissible under totality and break.
Whether Ambrose was in custody during the first meeting with Fitzgerald and Grant.	The meeting was custodial due to setup and safety concerns.	Not custody; atmosphere allowed voluntary participation.	Not custody for the initial stage; Miranda warnings not required then.
Whether the Marcello tapes’ statements were hearsay and properly limited.	Tapes show source of information and are admitted for non-hearsay context.	Hearsay and Confrontation Clause concerns if used for truth.	Tapes excluded for truth; non-hearsay use sustained; no Confrontation Clause violation.
Whether the district court properly applied 3553(a) factors in sentencing.	Sentence needed to deter disclosure of protected information.	Weighting and reliability of evidence were improper; within range.	Reasonable; within discretion, affirming four-year sentence.
Whether the court erred in ruling on the rule of completeness and juror notes.	Court’s handling preserved fairness.	Response to Turley and burden requirements were misapplied.	No reversible error; rulings and instructions were adequate.

United States v. Barker, 467 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2006) ( Miranda not required for all conversations with suspects; custody threshold governs)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Custody and interrogation trigger Miranda; custodial standard governs warnings)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (U.S. 2011) (Objective custody test includes age and perceptions of liberty)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (U.S. 2004) (Custody inquiry focuses on circumstances and liberty to leave)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (Two-step interrogation can raise concerns about Miranda waiver)
Swanson v. United States, 635 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2011) (Interrogation concept and taint analysis after unwarned statements)
Richardson v. United States, 657 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2011) (Post-Miranda statements admissible if not tainted by unwarned interrogation)
Knope v. United States, 655 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (Interrogation scope and custody considerations)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (Reasonableness review of sentences within statutory limits)
Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (U.S. 2011) (Sentencing within 3553(a) factors; reasonableness standard)