United States v. Assante, 979 F.Supp.2d 756

On Jan. 9, 2013 DSS agents, investigating a passport application, approached Renzo Raul Assante (alias Felipe Breckemeyer) at his workplace, interviewed him in an unlocked break room for a few minutes, and he identified himself as Breckemeyer.
Agents asked Assante to go downtown for fingerprinting; he agreed and rode with agents to the ICE facility where fingerprints confirmed his true identity.
At the ICE facility, Agent Lee questioned Assante about the fingerprint results without giving Miranda warnings; after several minutes Assante cried, confessed some matters, and requested an attorney; agents then read Miranda and arrested him. The court suppressed statements made at the ICE facility.
During escorting/processing, Assante voluntarily commented about owning firearms after asking an agent about the agent’s weapon; that statement was admitted as a spontaneous, non‑Miranda utterance.
ATF agents then went to Assante’s home; his wife, Martha Puche, gave verbal and written consent and showed agents firearms in a bedroom closet. She later contacted counsel and withdrew consent; agents stopped the search but had already seized three firearms. The court denied suppression of the firearms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Miranda warnings were required for questioning at workplace	Work interview was noncustodial so Miranda unnecessary	Assante asserts custodial interrogation requiring Miranda	Court: Not custodial at workplace; no Miranda required
Whether Miranda warnings were required for questioning at ICE facility	Statements at ICE were voluntary or not offered by gov't	Assante argues ICE questioning was custodial and statements inadmissible without Miranda	Court: Custodial at ICE; statements there suppressed
Whether spontaneous firearm remarks are subject to Miranda	Govt: statements re firearms were voluntary, unsolicited, admissible	Assante: argues suppression as fruit of custodial interrogation	Court: Statement about firearms was volunteered after Assante initiated conversation — admissible (not subject to Miranda)
Whether consent search by wife was valid and seizure lawful after revocation	Govt: Puche validly consented, showed firearms before revocation; discovery admissible	Assante: seizure occurred after withdrawal of consent — suppression required	Court: Consent was valid; firearms located before/at time of revocation; seizure and evidence admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda is constitutionally based and governs custodial interrogation)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995) (custody determination uses objective standard)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (reasonable person standard for custody analysis)
United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 1999) (workplace questioning not custodial where no restraint shown)
United States v. Swanson, 341 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2003) (factors for assessing custody and interrogation)
United States v. Buckingham, 433 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (government must prove consent was voluntary)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent search evaluated against expressed permission)
Painter v. Robertson, 185 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 1999) (consenting party may withdraw consent and limit scope of search)
Stanley v. Wainwright, 604 F.2d 379 (5th Cir. 1979) (spontaneous utterances are not protected by Miranda)
United States v. Guerrero, 129 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 1997) (evidence discovered during lawful consensual search need not be suppressed if consent later revoked)
United States v. Guzman, 852 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1988) (evidence found before consent revocation admissible)
United States v. Jachimko, 19 F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 1994) (consent remains valid for discoveries made before withdrawal)