United States v. Hazelwood
3:16-cr-00020
E.D. Tenn.Oct 10, 2017Background
- On April 15, 2013, FBI and IRS-CID agents executed search warrants at Pilot Travel Centers HQ; about 54 officers participated and ~20 came to the third floor where Wombold worked.
- Agents located Scott Wombold in a hallway, identified themselves, asked to speak with him, and he agreed; they waited briefly while other agents secured offices and then conducted an interview in his office.
- Interview setting: Wombold sat behind his desk in his windowed office with the door open ~6–8 inches; two agents (Fisher and Masterson) questioned him for ~2 hours; agents said the interview was voluntary, he was not under arrest, and he could leave or move locations (offers repeated mid-interview).
- During the interview Wombold’s phone rang multiple times (he was asked not to answer some calls but took one from his wife), and at one point an agent checked under his desk when the agent believed Wombold reached for something.
- Wombold moved to suppress oral statements made during that interview, arguing Miranda warnings were required because he was in custody; the magistrate recommended denial, district court largely adopted the R&R (with minor factual mods) and denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wombold was "in custody" for Miranda purposes during the office interview | Government: not custodial because no formal arrest/restraint comparable to arrest; two-agent voluntary interview in Wombold’s office; agents told him he was free to leave and could change location | Wombold: the overall environment (large armed presence, employees forced to hold hands up, firm commands, agent watching his hands, partial door opening) created restraint akin to custody so Miranda warnings were required | Court held interview was noncustodial; Miranda warnings not required and suppression denied |
| Credibility of disputed facts (yelling, demand to return to office, request for counsel) | Gov: agents’ testimony more credible; agents introduced themselves, requested interview, and denied any request for counsel by Wombold | Wombold: testified agents yelled, demanded he return to his office, and asked for a lawyer/company counsel during the interview | Court deferred to magistrate’s credibility findings rejecting Wombold’s version on these specific points |
| Weight of contextual factors (employees held hands up; visibility of other agents through door; weapon-check under desk) | Gov: these facts did not convert the interview into custody—offers to change location, voluntary nature, and limited protective/security actions weigh against custody | Wombold: witnessing colleagues restrained, seeing other agents, and being physically monitored (hands checked) would make a reasonable person feel not free to terminate the interview | Court found those factors insufficient, when viewed with all circumstances, to establish the degree of restraint associated with formal arrest |
| Whether district court should conduct de novo review of general objections to R&R | Gov: magistrate’s credibility findings entitled to deference; general objections do not trigger full de novo review | Wombold: urged reversal even if specific objections overruled | Court applied de novo review only to specific objections, found no error, and declined to grant de novo review to general/blanket objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirement of warnings when person is in custody and subject to interrogation)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody inquiry focuses on formal arrest or comparable restraint on freedom of movement)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (not all detentions are custodial for Miranda purposes)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (coercive atmosphere alone does not convert noncustodial interview into Miranda custody)
- United States v. Panak, 552 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2009) (Miranda custody inquiry assessed from perspective of reasonable innocent person; pressure to speak differs from being forced to stay)
- United States v. Luck, 852 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2017) (list of non-exhaustive factors for custody analysis)
- United States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 1998) (limited security measures like Terry stops/pat-downs do not automatically create Miranda custody)