United States v. Guillen
995 F.3d 1095
| 10th Cir. | 2021Background
- A teenage woman (MC) found a pressure-cooker IED under her bed and reported it; ATF, FBI, and local police investigated and identified Ethan Guillen as the only suspect she named.
- Officers knocked at Ethan’s home; Ethan initially asked for a warrant but, per the district court’s credibility findings and lapel video, said “sure” and stepped aside, allowing agents to enter.
- Ethan’s father, Reynaldo, who owned the house, verbally consented and signed a written consent form; agents searched and found bomb-making materials in Ethan’s master bedroom (backpack, nightstand, burn marks on porch table).
- While being questioned in the kitchen, Ethan denied involvement until agents confronted him with evidence; he then said, “Yes, I made it,” before receiving Miranda warnings (that pre-warning admission was suppressed).
- Agent Rominger immediately administered Miranda warnings; Ethan waived and gave detailed post-warning statements and led agents to items in his room. The district court suppressed the pre-warning confession but admitted the physical evidence and post-warning statements.
- Ethan pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the denial of suppression; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guillen) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless entry — consent and voluntariness | Ethan says he never validly consented and any consent was coerced by multiple officers and repeated requests | Agents say Ethan said “sure,” stepped aside, and consent (express and implied) was voluntary | District court credited agents; consent (verbal and by conduct) was voluntary and not clearly erroneous |
| Lawfulness of bedroom search — father's authority to consent | Ethan argues Reynaldo lacked authority (habitual locking, agreement not to enter) so consent invalid as to bedroom and personal containers | Government: parent presumed control; agents reasonably relied on Reynaldo’s consent (apparent authority) | Search upheld: officers reasonably believed Reynaldo had authority; search of backpack/nightstand lawful |
| Pre-Miranda custodial interrogation | Ethan: initial confession preceded Miranda and occurred in custody — suppress all statements | Government: interview was non-custodial until confession | Court: interview became custodial when agent confronted Ethan with evidence; pre-warning admission suppressed |
| Midstream Miranda / two-step interrogation and voluntariness of post-warning statements | Ethan: post-warning statements tainted by an impermissible two-step tactic and involuntary waiver — suppress | Government: warnings given immediately after admission; no deliberate question-first strategy; waiver voluntary | Gov't proved interrogation was not a deliberate two-step scheme; under Elstad post-warning statements were voluntary and admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda rule: warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (midstream warnings can cure an unwarned but noncoercive statement if subsequent waiver is voluntary)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (plurality and concurrence addressing two-step/question-first interrogations; postwarning statements may be inadmissible when warnings were deliberately withheld)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1977) (narrowest-grounds rule for splintered Supreme Court decisions)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (waiver of Miranda rights may be inferred from voluntary statements showing understanding)
- United States v. Rith, 164 F.3d 1323 (10th Cir. 1999) (parental presumption of authority over adult child’s bedroom and factors that rebut it)
- United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2007) (apparent authority to consent to search of items in adult son’s bedroom)
- United States v. Romero, 749 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 2014) (objective test for apparent authority to consent to a third-party search)