United States v. Faisal Hashime
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22044
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hashime, age 19, convicted on multiple child-pornography counts after an extensive custodial interrogation.
- Law enforcement executed a search warrant at Hashime’s home following discovery of a related email account tied to child pornography.
- Interrogation occurred in a storage-room-like basement, conducted for about three hours, with Hashime isolated from his family.
- Officers did not read Miranda rights until over two hours into the interrogation.
- Hashime provided detailed incriminating statements, passwords, and location of files; some statements were recorded without Hashime’s initial consent to recording.
- District court denied suppression; Hashime pled guilty to some charges and trial on production/distribution counts proceeded; sentence imposed used mandatory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hashime was in custody for Miranda purposes during interrogation | Hashime was not in custody; officers told him he could leave | Custody existed due to home intrusion, isolation, length, and control over Hashime | Yes, Hashime was in custody; Miranda warnings required |
| Whether the Miranda custody ruling affects sentencing issues | Conviction should stand or be retried | Proportionality concerns apply to sentencing | Remand for custody-directed determinations; proportionality issues left moot by reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 F.2d 420 (U.S. 1984) (custody analysis for custodial interrogation; police-custody factors)
- Colonna, 511 F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2007) (home-search custodial interrogation factors)
- Day, 591 F.3d 679 (4th Cir. 2010) (custody factors in interrogation context)
- Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2010) ( Miranda requirements depend on custody, not demeanor alone)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (U.S. 2011) (custody determination is objective, not subjective)
- Parker, 262 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2001) (custody assessment; totality of circumstances)
- Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (proportionality review for sentences below life may be available under certain circumstances)
- Ming Hong, 242 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 2001) (proportionality review not categorically barred for term-of-years; context matters)
- Polk, 905 F.2d 54 (4th Cir. 1990) (early framework for proportionality in this circuit)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Solem holdings on proportionality review framework)