979 F. Supp. 2d 756
W.D. Ky.2013Background
- Assante was indicted on passport fraud, aggravated identity theft, unlawful firearm possession, and false-statement charges. Federal DSS agents began surveilling him and later questioned him at his workplace (a Fiat dealership) without Miranda warnings; he identified himself as Felipe Berckemeyer there.
- Agents asked Assante to go downtown to the ICE facility for fingerprinting to verify identity; he rode with agents. At ICE, after fingerprint results revealed his true identity, agents questioned him in a small interview room with multiple agents present and without Miranda warnings.
- At ICE, Assante began crying, admitted obtaining papers from Peru, expressed fear of jail and return to Peru, and then requested a lawyer; at that point Agent Lee read Miranda warnings and placed him under arrest. The government says it will not introduce statements obtained by ICE agents.
- While being processed, Assante voluntarily spoke with an agent about firearms after asking the agent what weapon he carried; he disclosed that he and his wife kept firearms at home and had a business card from a gun dealer.
- ATF agents, relying on this information, obtained verbal and later written consent from Assante’s wife, Martha Puche, to search the home; she led agents to firearms in a bedroom closet. She later called defense counsel and revoked consent; agents stopped the search but had already located/seized the firearms.
- Defendant moved to suppress statements and evidence; the government conceded it would not use ICE-obtained interview evidence but defended the workplace questioning as noncustodial and the home search as consensual and lawful.
Issues
| Issue | United States' Argument | Assante's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings were required for questioning at workplace | Noncustodial; brief, unlocked break-room interview; no restraint | Statements should be suppressed as product of custodial interrogation | Not custodial; statements at work admissible |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required for questioning at ICE facility | Non-application not argued to be used; otherwise, interrogation was lawful | Custodial interrogation once fingerprints revealed identity and he was in restricted room | Custodial — statements at ICE suppressed |
| Admissibility of spontaneous statements about firearms | Statements were volunteered after Assante initiated conversation; not responsive to interrogation | Statements should be suppressed as fruits of custodial questioning | Voluntary, non-responsive utterance admissible |
| Validity of consent search and seizure of firearms after withdrawal of consent | Wife validly consented and pointed to firearms before withdrawal; evidence found during lawful consent is admissible | Seizure after revocation violated Fourth Amendment; suppression required | Consent was valid and firearms were located before/when consent was revoked; seizure lawful and admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda safeguards are constitutionally based)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (objective custody inquiry for Miranda purposes)
- United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 1999) (workplace questioning not necessarily custodial)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent to search)
- United States v. Buckingham, 433 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (government must prove consent was voluntary)
- United States v. Abdullah, 162 F.3d 897 (6th Cir. 1998) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Guerrero, 129 F.3d 611 (5th Cir. 1997) (evidence discovered during lawful consent is not retroactively suppressed when consent is later revoked)