United States v. Brigido Zapien
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11809
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA investigated Brigido Luna Zapien after an informant tip and observed a controlled drug transaction; he was arrested on Feb. 10, 2012 and taken to the Sahuarita Police Department station.
- At the station, DEA and SPD officers Mirandized Luna Zapien (in Spanish); he initially waived and spoke, then explicitly invoked his right to counsel after agents accused him of being a drug dealer.
- After invocation, officers stopped drug-related questioning and asked routine biographical questions (name, birthdate, address, family) purportedly to complete a DEA Form 202 for booking/Marshals.
- Following those biographical questions, Luna Zapien volunteered that he wanted to speak, officers re-Mirandized him, he waived counsel, and then confessed to participating in drug trafficking.
- The district court credited the agents’ testimony, held the post-invocation biographical questions were within the booking exception to Miranda, denied suppression, and the jury convicted Luna Zapien; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-invocation questioning constituted "interrogation" under Miranda/Edwards | Government: Questions were routine booking/biographical questions covered by the booking exception and not reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses | Luna Zapien: Biographical questioning after he invoked counsel was interrogation in violation of Miranda/Edwards | The court held the questions fell within the booking exception and were not interrogation; confession was admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda rights for custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once counsel is requested, police must cease interrogation unless defendant initiates further communication)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines "interrogation" as words or actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (plurality) (recognizes booking exception for routine biographical data)
- United States v. Williams, 842 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2016) (discusses booking-exception scope in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (booking questions can be permissible even after invocation if not reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)