United States v. Mark Sandell
27 F.4th 625
| 8th Cir. | 2022Background
- Law enforcement investigating peer-to-peer child‑pornography downloads executed a search warrant at a Red Oak, Iowa home, cleared the residents, and then focused on neighbor Mark Sandell based on neighbors’ statements about his Wi‑Fi use and sex‑offender registration needs.
- Officers went to Sandell’s home, identified themselves, swept the house for other occupants, and asked Sandell to speak; Sandell invited them into his living room and was told repeatedly he was not under arrest and free not to speak.
- Officers asked consent to search Sandell’s home; he refused. Officers supervised his movements inside the house (e.g., escorting him while he took his dog out, retrieved medication, made coffee, used the restroom, and fetched a phone number).
- During the interview Sandell admitted recently downloading child pornography, described his laptop collection, and voluntarily turned over a camera and two thumb drives; he declined to discuss a prior conviction.
- Officers obtained a search warrant, seized electronic media, left without arresting Sandell, and later charged him; Sandell moved to suppress the in‑home statements, pled guilty while preserving appeal of the suppression denial, and the district court denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the in‑home interrogation was custodial such that Miranda warnings were required | Sandell: police supervision, K‑9 threat, and vehicle‑search warning made a reasonable person feel unable to terminate the encounter | Government: officers repeatedly said he was not under arrest, he retained freedom of movement, voluntarily answered questions, and no coercive tactics were used | Not custodial; Miranda warnings not required |
| Whether Sandell’s statements were involuntary under the Due Process Clause | Sandell: statements were extracted by threats/promises and coercive pressure that overbore his will | Government: no threats or coercive stratagems; repeated advisories and Sandell’s criminal history show capacity to resist pressure; he raised sentencing himself | Statements voluntary; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Parker, 993 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard for Miranda custody analysis and review of suppression rulings)
- United States v. Ferguson, 970 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2020) (sets non‑exhaustive six‑factor custody framework)
- United States v. Giboney, 863 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2017) (repeated advisements that suspect is free to leave weigh against custody)
- United States v. Williams, 760 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2014) (defines custody as formal arrest or comparable restraint)
- United States v. Laurita, 821 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (absence of handcuffs or physical restraint supports noncustody)
- United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004) (warnings that interview is voluntary are powerful evidence of noncustodial status)
- United States v. Perrin, 659 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2011) (no custody where defendant was advised he was free to leave)
- United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) (large police presence during a search does not necessarily create custody)
- United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2010) (responding after being told one is free to leave shows voluntary acquiescence)
- United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2006) (compulsion to answer where an authority ordered cooperation)
- United States v. Roberts, 975 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2020) (voluntariness standard: statements involuntary if extracted by threats, violence, or promises that overbear will)
- United States v. Magallon, 984 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir. 2021) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for voluntariness; relevant factors listed)
- United States v. Brave Heart, 397 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2005) (voluntariness inquiry and applicable factors)
- United States v. Boslau, 632 F.3d 422 (8th Cir. 2011) (factors for assessing coercion, length, location, and defendant’s characteristics)
- United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (prior criminal history can indicate familiarity with constitutional rights)