United States v. Haak, 215 F. Supp. 3d 218

Haak is charged with fentanyl possession with intent to distribute and distribution, and death alleged from use of the substance.
Haak was interviewed March 4, 2015 at the Town of Hamburg police station by TFA Glenn Zawierucha; he came voluntarily and brought his car.
Prior to questioning, Haak received an incomplete Miranda warning (rights to silence and counsel, and to stop answering), but not that statements could be used against him; he acknowledged familiarity with Miranda.
During questioning, officers discussed Haak’s recent texts and the death of J.F. from fentanyl, and Haak agreed to participate in a controlled buy.
Detective Zawierucha made statements implying Haak would avoid prosecution if he cooperated, while Benjamin-like assurances suggested potential leniency.
Judge McCarthy found Haak’s March 4 statements involuntary and recommended suppression; this Court adopted that recommendation after de novo review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Haak’s statements were voluntary under the Due Process Clause	Haak’s statements were coerced by promises	Haak was not in custody; incomplete warnings raise issue	Yes; statements suppressed including Zawierucha interview
Effect of incomplete Miranda warnings in non-custodial interrogation	Warnings were incomplete but not constitutionally required if non-custodial	Incomplete warnings could render interrogation coercive	Not dispositive; suppression warranted on totality-of-circumstances regardless of Miranda completeness
Public-safety exception applicability to non-custodial interrogation	Quarles exception could permit questioning without full warnings	No urgency; exception inapplicable here	Inapplicable; Quarles applies only to custodial settings and not to this non-custodial interview
Whether the government’s promises or threats were coercive in coercing a confession	Promises of leniency are not coercive per se	Explicit/implicit assurances not to prosecute if cooperated were coercive	Promissory misrepresentations rendered confession involuntary; suppression warranted
Standard of review for magistrate judge’s findings on voluntariness	De novo review required strong deference to magistrate	Court must independently assess voluntariness	Court conducted de novo review; adopted magistrate’s voluntariness finding in favor of suppression

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (coercive police activity as prerequisite for involuntary confession)
Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894 (2d Cir. 1988) (totality of circumstances: characteristics, interrogation conditions, conduct of officers)
Ruggles v. United States, 70 F.3d 262 (2d Cir. 1995) (prior record and familiarity with police questioning relevant to voluntariness)
Gaines v. United States, 295 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2002) (promises of leniency for cooperation; coercive effect when unfulfilled or misrepresented)
Loll v. United States, 607 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2010) (misrepresentations can render confession involuntary if material)
United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024 (3d Cir. 1993) (promises not to prosecute can be uniquely influential in coercion analysis)
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1972) (requires reliable, voluntary confession under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Guanespen-Portillo, 514 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2008) (when voluntariness clearly arises, court should raise issue sua sponte)
Quarles v. United States, 467 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1984) (public-safety exception to Miranda; narrow, exigent circumstances)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (waiver voluntariness requires knowing, intelligent choice)