United States v. Larry Loucious
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2166
9th Cir.2017Background
- LVMPD stopped a car for speeding; officers smelled marijuana, ran ID checks, and discovered an outstanding warrant for Larry Loucious, who was arrested.
- A revolver was found in the back seat where Loucious had been sitting; officers obtained a search warrant and seized the firearm.
- After arrest, Officer Costello read Loucious Miranda warnings that said he had the right to remain silent; anything said could be used in court; the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed before questioning.
- Loucious admitted touching the gun days earlier and was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Loucious moved to suppress his custodial statements, arguing the Miranda warnings were deficient because they did not explicitly state he could consult with an attorney before questioning; the district court granted suppression.
- The government appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the warnings reasonably conveyed the right to consult counsel before questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Loucious' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings were deficient for failing to explicitly state the right to consult counsel before questioning | Warnings failed to inform him he could consult with counsel prior to questioning, so statements must be suppressed | Warnings reasonably conveyed the right to consult counsel before and during questioning; explicit wording not required | Warnings were adequate; statements not suppressed (reversed district court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established requirement to inform suspects of rights before custodial interrogation)
- California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (precise verbal formulation of warnings not required)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (inquiry is whether warnings reasonably convey rights)
- Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (warnings that convey same essential message are adequate; FBI wording exemplary)
- United States v. Noti, 731 F.2d 610 (9th Cir.) (reviewing Miranda warnings de novo; verbatim reading eliminates such challenges)
- United States v. Noa, 443 F.2d 144 (9th Cir.) (warnings that reference appointed counsel before questioning convey right to consult appointed counsel)
- People of the Territory of Guam v. Snaer, 758 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.) (warnings stating right to consult and have counsel present adequately convey prequestioning consultation right)
- United States v. Connell, 869 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.) (courts may make logical inferences from Miranda rights given)