United States v. Familetti, 878 F.3d 53

Background

Familetti, who had exchanged child pornography and agreed to pay for sex with a minor in online chats, paid $100 as a down payment to an undercover agent and returned to his corporate apartment, where agents executed a search warrant.
On entry Familetti had a severe panic attack; agents briefly restrained and handcuffed him, then removed the cuffs after he calmed down.
In the bedroom, after being told he was not under arrest and was free to leave, Agent Thompson told Familetti the search related to child pornography and asked if he could “help” or cooperate; Familetti agreed.
Thompson then gave Miranda warnings (oral and written), obtained a waiver, and Familetti confessed to trading/possessing child pornography and making the $100 payment.
The district court denied suppression of the pre-warning statement and the subsequent confession; Familetti appealed, arguing (1) the pre-warning cooperation request was a custodial interrogation, and (2) the two-step interrogation rendered the post-warning waiver involuntary under Seibert.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-Miranda solicitation to “help” was an interrogation	Familetti: asking him to cooperate was designed to elicit incriminating admissions and thus was interrogation under Innis	Government: a request for cooperation is not inherently the functional equivalent of questioning; Guido permits such pre-warning solicitations	Court: The specific request here was interrogation — given officers volunteered the criminal conduct, indicated suspicion, and the solicitation was likely to elicit incriminating responses
Whether Familetti was "in custody" when solicited	Familetti: physical restraint, many agents, and the circumstances made a reasonable person feel not free to leave	Government: he was in his home, told repeatedly he was not under arrest and free to leave, handcuffs removed, conversational tone, short duration	Court: Not in custody — objective factors (home setting, assurances of freedom, removal of handcuffs, no weapons drawn, brief noncoercive questioning) outweigh restraints earlier during the panic
Whether Miranda suppression applies to pre-warning statement	Familetti: pre-warning custodial interrogation requires suppression of that statement and taints later waiver	Government: even if interrogation occurred, it was noncustodial so Miranda not triggered	Court: Because interrogation was noncustodial, Miranda safeguards did not apply and the pre-warning statement was admissible
Whether post-warning confession was invalid under Seibert two-step theory	Familetti: the deliberate unwarned-then-warned technique made the later waiver involuntary	Government: no deliberate Seibert technique because pre-warning segment was noncustodial and warnings were given before any custodial interrogation	Court: Did not reach Seibert issue on merits; because no custodial pre-warning interrogation, Seibert claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation and the "functional equivalent" test)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (two-step unwarned-then-warned interrogation can invalidate post-warning confession)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1983) (per curiam) (custody inquiry focuses on formal arrest or restraint associated with arrest)
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1984) (public-safety exception to Miranda)
United States v. Guido, 704 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1983) (discussion that cooperation requests are not inherently interrogation)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2004) (factors for assessing custody in a nonarrest setting)
United States v. Faux, 828 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2016) (questioning in one’s home during a search is not necessarily custodial)