United States v. Murphy
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24904
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- In 2010, a Kansas trooper stopped a car on I-70 after a ruse drug checkpoint, resulting in the arrest of Webster and Murphy and a search that uncovered cocaine in a hidden compartment.
- The stop was recorded on an MVR, showing the car stopped and the trooper interacting with the occupants before consent to search.
- The district court found the stop unlawful, held the consent tainted by the unlawful stop, and suppression of cocaine evidence and post-arrest statements was warranted.
- Miranda warnings were given about 45 minutes after arrest; Murphy responded affirmatively to understanding, while Webster did not acknowledge understanding; both later made statements to another officer.
- On appeal, the government challenged (a) whether there was a seizure, (b) whether taint dissipated to allow voluntary consent, and (c) whether waivers of Miranda rights were knowing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an unlawful seizure of the Honda? | Government argues no seizure occurred; car stopped voluntarily. | District Court correctly found a seizure by activating lights and stopping the car. | Seizure found; suppression appropriate. |
| Did taint from the unlawful seizure dissipate so that Webster’s consent to search was voluntary? | Ta tints dissipated due to time and intervening circumstances. | Taint persisted; consent tainted by initial seizure. | Taint persisted; consent suppressed. |
| Were Murphy and Webster’s Miranda waivers knowing? | Warnings adequately conveyed rights; waivers were knowing. | Warnings were confusing and did not ensure knowing waiver. | Waivers not knowing; statements suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (U.S. 2003) (taint dissipation factors in determining voluntary consent)
- Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1982) (short time between illegality and confession limits dissipation of taint)
- Oguns v. United States, 921 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1990) (brief lapse between illegal entry and consent; taint analysis)
- Snype v. United States, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (factors for taint and voluntariness of consent after illegality)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989) (no talismanic incantation required for Miranda warnings)
- Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195 (U.S. 2010) (clarity of warnings and conveyance of rights)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (U.S. 2010) (knowing and voluntary waiver requirement for Miranda)
- United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review and factual findings on suppression)
- United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1987) (timing of consent after illegality factors in taint analysis)
- Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 (U.S. 1982) (reiterated in taint discussion; see above)