United States v. Cash
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22345
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- On March 22, 2011 Officer McEachern stopped Michael Cash for a traffic violation; he observed in plain view an artificial bladder device and learned Cash said he was en route to a drug test with his federal probation officer (Officer Brittingham).
- Based on the bladder device and Cash’s statements (and observed nervousness/inconsistent destinations), McEachern detained Cash and called Officer Brittingham to the scene.
- When Brittingham arrived he saw a pistol in the back seat; a struggle followed while removing Cash from the vehicle, Cash was subdued, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol cruiser.
- Officers inventoried the vehicle after securing it and recovered a loaded .22 pistol, ~10 grams methamphetamine in baggies, pills, and syringes.
- While handcuffed in the cruiser Cash summoned Brittingham and told him (without Miranda warnings) he had been dealing drugs and feared for his life; Cash moved to suppress both the physical evidence and these statements.
- The district court denied both suppression motions; Cash was convicted on three federal counts and appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Cash’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial traffic stop and 25‑minute detention violated the Fourth Amendment | Detention was prolonged without reasonable suspicion; evidence seized should be suppressed | Initial stop lawful; bladder device, Cash’s admission re: probation officer, nervousness/inconsistencies gave reasonable suspicion to extend the stop | Denied suppression: detention reasonable and supported by articulable facts (affirmed) |
| Whether Miranda required warnings for Cash’s statements in the cruiser | Statements were custodial and should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings | Although custodial, Cash initiated the encounter; officers’ questions were not interrogation under Innis/Miranda | Denied suppression: Miranda did not apply because the interaction was not interrogation (affirmed) |
| Whether Cash’s statements were involuntary | Statements were involuntary due to recent injuries, possible intoxication, and coercion from arrest force | No police coercion or promises; Cash initiated contact; he appeared coherent and not compelled | Denied suppression: statements voluntary under totality of circumstances (affirmed) |
| Whether physical evidence was fruit of unlawful detention (related to parole/supervision) | Evidence should be excluded as product of illegal detention and search | Probable cause/reasonable suspicion independent of parole status justified detention and subsequent plain‑view seizure/inventory | Denied suppression: physical evidence admissible (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings to admit statement)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of "interrogation" includes express questioning or its functional equivalent)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (police coercion is a necessary predicate for finding a confession involuntary)
- United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (officer may extend detention upon development of reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Chavez, 660 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2011) (reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause but requires more than a hunch)
- United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (inconsistent travel plans and nervousness can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Botero‑Ospina, 71 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 1995) (traffic stop constitutional when based on observed traffic violation)