United States v. Anthony Laurita
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8134
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- FBI executed a search warrant at Laurita’s grandmother’s home for child pornography; agents seized a computer and learned Laurita was at work.
- Two FBI personnel (Special Agent Howley and an FBI computer scientist, King) went to Laurita’s workplace (Teletech), identified themselves, and asked to speak with him in a human-resources conference room.
- Laurita’s supervisor summoned and escorted him to the closed-door HR area and then left; the interview lasted about 20 minutes, door closed, agents sat near Laurita, no handcuffs or physical restraint.
- During the interview Laurita admitted viewing child pornography at his grandmother’s house and described how he accessed it; agents recommended counseling and did not arrest him; they gave him a business card and he returned to work.
- Laurita moved to suppress the statements as the product of a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; the magistrate judge recommended denial, the district court granted suppression, and the government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interview was custodial requiring Miranda warnings | Laurita: being summoned by supervisor to a closed HR room, outnumbered, door closed, and questioned about child abuse created a restraint on freedom of movement | Government: no physical restraint, brief voluntary interview at workplace, agents identified themselves, Laurita was free to leave and returned to work afterward | Court: Not custodial — a reasonable person would have felt free to leave; reversed suppression |
| Relevance of supervisor escort to custody analysis | Laurita: supervisor’s order and escort made him feel compelled to attend and constrained his freedom | Government: supervisor acted for employer, not FBI; employer-directed attendance is not attributable to police for custody purposes | Court: supervisor’s conduct irrelevant to custody because it was not government action |
| Whether agents used deceptive or coercive tactics | Laurita: agent framed questions to suggest child sexual assault, inducing admissions via deception/pressure | Government: questions related to legitimate child-safety concerns; no strong-arm tactics or threats | Court: no deceptive or strong-arm tactics sufficient to render interview custodial |
| Weight of failure to give voluntariness / free-to-leave advisement | Laurita: absence of explicit advisement supports custody finding | Government: advisement not dispositive; totality shows liberty to terminate interview | Court: absence of advisement did not change outcome given other mitigating factors; not custodial |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (custody depends on formal arrest or restraint associated with arrest)
- United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (sets six nonexclusive custody indicia)
- United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (reasonable-person test for custody)
- United States v. Diaz, 736 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2013) (no custody where interview was noncoercive and suspect not told free to leave)
- United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2006) (deception irrelevant unless it affects perception of freedom to leave)
- United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) (voluntary, cooperative interview supports noncustodial finding)