United States v. Guess
2010 WL 5260998
E.D. Va.2010Background
- Defendant Timothy Guess was arrested in Norfolk on June 23, 2010, during a narcotics investigation involving a confidential informant and a planned methamphetamine sale.
- The CI arranged to order three grams of meth from Guess, described as an older white male, identified later as Guess, leading to a sting at the CI’s Harvard Street residence.
- At the scene, detectives observed Guess in front of the CI’s residence and identified Guess’s white pickup truck as belonging to Guess; a vehicle-linked search was anticipated.
- During arrest, detectives found drugs, a firearm, and keys on Guess’s orange lanyard; Guess stated he owned a vehicle, the white pickup truck, and he declined consent to search it without a warrant, invoking the right to counsel; Miranda warnings were not given at that moment.
- A K-9 screening of the truck yielded narcotics and another firearm; the police did not leave the vehicle at the scene, and investigators anticipated a search had probable cause.
- The Government sought to introduce Guess’s on-scene statements about vehicle ownership and his refusal to consent to a search; the Court granted in part suppression and reserved the consent issue for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda applies to the ownership question | Ownership question not interrogation under Miranda. | Question was interrogation; Miranda warnings required. | Miranda applies; ownership statement suppressed |
| Whether the booking exception applies to the ownership question | Booking exception covers routine biographical data; ownership is administrative. | Booking exception should apply to any routine booking questions. | Booking exception inapplicable |
| Whether the ownership question falls under the general on-the-scene exception | Question was general on-the-scene, not custodial interrogation. | Question was custodial interrogation on-scene. | General on-the-scene exception inapplicable |
| Whether the public safety exception applies | Public safety justified unwarned questioning about vehicle ownership. | Public safety exception narrowly reserved for imminent danger; not here. | Public safety exception inapplicable |
| Whether the refusal to consent to search is admissible and under what grounds | Refusal to consent can be admitted to show ownership or consciousness of guilt; Fourth Amendment implications optional. | Refusal cannot be used to infer ownership or guilt; protects Fourth Amendment rights. | Resolution reserved for trial; suppression of ownership statement affirmed; consent issue to be decided at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (required warnings for custodial interrogation)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (interrogation includes functional equivalent)
- United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623 (4th Cir. 2007) (Miranda safeguards attach to custodial interrogation)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) (routine booking exception to Miranda)
- United States v. Payne, 954 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1992) (interrogation includes express questioning and its functional equivalent)
- United States v. Henley, 984 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1993) (ownership-type questions can trigger Miranda when linked to a crime)
- United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088 (7th Cir. 1993) (ownership inquiries during search may implicate testimonial incrimination)
- United States v. Downing, 665 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1981) (express questioning can constitute interrogation)
- Wisconsin v. Thorbahn, N/A (N/A) (not cited here; exclude due to missing official reporter citation)
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public safety exception to Miranda for weapons concerns)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (general on-the-scene questioning not custodial)