United States v. Faux
828 F.3d 130
2d Cir.2016Background
- FBI, HHS-OIG, and IRS agents executed a pre-dawn search warrant at Danielle Faux’s Norwalk home as part of an 18-month investigation into alleged billing fraud (billing personal training as physical therapy).
- Approximately 10–15 agents were present; Faux and her husband had been preparing to leave for vacation when agents arrived and the trip was canceled.
- Two agents (McPhillips and Fontes) conducted a two-hour, in-home interview in Faux’s dining room; Faux was not given Miranda warnings and was told ~20 minutes in that she was “not under arrest.”
- Faux’s movements and communications were monitored during the interview (cell phone seized; an agent accompanied her to bathroom/bedroom); agents say restrictions were for officer safety and evidence preservation, but Faux was not told that reasoning.
- Faux was separated from her husband during questioning and did not explicitly ask to terminate the interview or to leave; she later was indicted on health-care-fraud and related counts.
- The district court suppressed Faux’s statements, finding the interview amounted to a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings; the government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in-home interview was "custodial" for Miranda | Faux: intimidating show of force, seizure of phone, accompaniment, separation, cancellation of vacation made a reasonable person feel not free to leave | Govt: interview was noncustodial — location at home, conversational tone, no handcuffs, no weapons displayed, told she was not under arrest, free to leave if asked | Not custodial; Miranda not required |
| Whether restrictions on movement converted seizure into custody | Faux: being shadowed to bathroom/bedroom and monitored curtailed freedom of action | Govt: accompaniment was a reasonable precaution while executing a search warrant for safety/evidence preservation | Restrictions did not rise to degree associated with formal arrest |
| Whether number/appearance of officers made environment "police-dominated" | Faux: 10–15 agents from multiple agencies created overwhelming, intimidating environment | Govt: number alone insufficient; agents were not threatening, did not draw weapons, and interview was conversational | Presence of many agents weighed against custody but was not dispositive absent other hallmarks of arrest |
| Whether failure to give Miranda warnings required suppression | Faux: statements obtained during custodial interrogation must be suppressed | Govt: because interview was noncustodial, warnings unnecessary and statements admissible | Statements should not have been suppressed; suppression vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (definition of interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (custody test asks how a reasonable person would view their freedom to leave)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (no Miranda requirement when person is not in custody)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (officer’s subjective views do not determine custody unless conveyed to suspect)
- United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2004) (custody inquiry focuses on whether freedom of action was curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest)
- FNU LNU v. United States, 653 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2011) (lists factors relevant to custody analysis)
- United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (large police presence can create a police-dominated, custodial environment)
- Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969) (defendant in custody when officers entered bedroom at 4 a.m. and said he was under arrest)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (occupant of premises being searched may be detained temporarily)
- Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976) (statements at home are less likely to be custodial)
- United States v. Badmus, 325 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2003) (in-home questioning noncustodial where defendant was told he was not under arrest and could ask officers to leave)