United States v. Morgan
738 F.3d 1002
9th Cir.2013Background
- Morgan arrested at San Miguel Gate after drugs were found in a speaker box; she invoked her right to counsel and interview ended at scene.
- She was transported to Casa Grande Border Patrol station where the drugs were kept in the processing area under agent Armour’s observation.
- Armour read a portion of the 1-214 Form containing Miranda warnings and Morgan signed acknowledging rights, but did not read the waiver section.
- Morgan later spoke with Armour after reportedly waiving her rights; processing occurred in the same room as the seized drugs, including photographing Morgan with the drugs.
- Morgan was indicted on conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute; she moved to suppress her statements, which the district court denied; she appealed.
- The court affirmed, holding Armour’s actions were not interrogation or its functional equivalent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rereading Miranda warnings constituted interrogation | Morgan argues re-initiation violated Miranda | Armour's reading was routine processing, not interrogation | Not interrogation |
| Whether processing and photographing the arrestee with drugs constitutes the functional equivalent of interrogation | Morgan alleges combined actions were coercive | Actions were routine processing and not likely to elicit a response | Not the functional equivalent of interrogation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (defines interrogation and functional equivalent)
- Guam v. Ichiyasu, 838 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1988) (reading warnings not necessarily coercive; normally attendant to arrest)
- United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (high standard for functional equivalent of interrogation)
- United States v. Moreno-Flores, 33 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 1994) (statements not the functional equivalent absent eliciting remarks)
- Shedelbower v. Estelle, 885 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1989) (not functional equivalent when not the type of comments to elicit incriminating remark)
- United States v. Orso, 266 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (delay in Mirandizing considered in evaluating interrogation)
- United States v. Ichiyasu, 838 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1988) (referenced for routine processing versus interrogation)