United States v. Hargrove, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23839

Hargrove was convicted on three counts: attempted transfer of obscenity to a minor, transfer of child pornography, and attempted enticement of a minor.
The district court admitted into evidence statements Hargrove made during a January 5, 2007 interview conducted after a search of his Connecticut residence.
Officers conducted the search pursuant to a warrant; during the interview, Hargrove was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave, and he was not read Miranda warnings.
A magistrate judge and then the district court held the interview was noncustodial and that Miranda warnings were not required; the case proceeded to trial and Hargrove was convicted on all counts.
At sentencing, the court calculated a Guidelines range, imposed sentences of 120 months (Count I), 240 months (Count II), and life (Count III), all concurrent, and stated it would not deviate from the Guidelines.
On appeal, Hargrove argued the suppression ruling was incorrect and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court improperly relied on his decision to go to trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the January 2007 interview was custodial interrogation	Hargrove contends the totality of circumstances shows custody and required Miranda warnings.	The Government argues the interview was noncustodial and voluntary.	Not custodial; statements admitted; suppression denial affirmed.
Whether the district court erred by considering Hargrove's election to go to trial in sentencing	Hargrove argues using trial rights as a sentencing factor violates due process.	Government contends any error is not reversible; guidelines were advisory post-Booker.	No plain error; sentence affirmed.

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (custody determination based on totality of circumstances)
Parker v. United States, 262 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.2001) (noncustodial interrogation when not under arrest and free to leave)
Colonna, 511 F.3d 431 (4th Cir.2007) (not always custody; includes 'not under arrest' plus other factors)
Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir.2006) (explicitly allowing that being free to leave supports noncustodial analysis)
Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (environment not coercive; context of interrogation matters)
Braxton, 112 F.3d 774 (4th Cir.1997) (house interview context favors noncustodial finding)
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (police detention of occupants during search can affect custody analysis)
Ostensibly cited: United States v. Photogrammetric Data Servs., 259 F.3d 229 (4th Cir.2001) (premises security during search relevant to custody assessment)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (objective circumstances govern custody analysis)
United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690 (4th Cir.2006) (standard for review of suppression rulings)
Knight, 606 F.3d 171 (4th Cir.2010) (substantial rights and plain-error standard in sentencing)