966 F.3d 1000
9th Cir.2020Background
- July 12, 2017: A Portland police aircraft was struck by a green laser; aircraft systems traced the laser to Bocharnikov’s home.
- MCSD officers arrived after midnight; Bocharnikov, in boxer shorts, came to the door, was handcuffed, sat on the front steps, and was questioned without Miranda warnings.
- During that encounter Bocharnikov admitted shining the laser and surrendered the device; officers released him and made no further contact.
- About eight months later an FBI agent in plain clothes approached Bocharnikov outside his home, identified himself, said he had “follow‑up questions,” and interviewed Bocharnikov for 20–40 minutes without Miranda warnings; Bocharnikov again admitted to shining the laser.
- Bocharnikov was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 39A and moved to suppress the March 2018 statements as tainted by the illegal July detention and seizure; the district court denied suppression, Bocharnikov pled guilty reserving the right to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March 2018 statements were admissible despite the July 2017 illegal detention/seizure (attenuation) | March statements were tainted by the earlier illegality and must be suppressed | Eight months’ passage and noncustodial, friendly interview attenuated the taint | Reversed: statements not sufficiently attenuated and should have been suppressed |
| Whether passage of time alone can purge prior illegality | Time alone insufficient where later encounter referenced the earlier detention and lacked intervening events | Time (8 months) is dispositive and comparable to cases permitting admission after shorter intervals | Time alone did not purge the taint here; reference to a “follow‑up” collapsed the elapsed time into a continuation |
| Whether intervening circumstances (e.g., Miranda warnings, change of location) broke the causal chain | No intervening circumstances existed; no Miranda warnings were given in either encounter | The later interview was noncoercive, noncustodial, and voluntary, supporting admissibility | Lack of Miranda warnings and absence of other intervening events meant no break in causal chain |
| Role of official misconduct’s flagrancy in attenuation analysis | The misconduct was sufficiently serious to require suppression | Conduct was not deliberate or flagrant; officers legitimately sought to secure the laser | Misconduct was not shown to be flagrant, but that factor did not overcome the other two factors favoring suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (sets three‑factor attenuation test for taint of unlawful searches/seizures)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (distinguishes Miranda violations from Fourth Amendment taint; attenuation may be unnecessary for mere Miranda error)
- United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978) (time and intervening events can dissipate causal link; testimony from a live witness treated differently than physical evidence)
- United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (applies Brown factors and emphasizes intervening circumstances and Miranda warnings)
- Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (addresses deliberate strategy to elicit confession pre‑ and post‑Miranda)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule bars direct and sufficiently related indirect products of constitutional violations)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (foundational case for exclusionary rule)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule is prophylactic to deter unconstitutional searches/seizures)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (statements after a lawful arrest with probable cause need not be suppressed)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (limits warrantless home arrests)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (noting distinctions between Fourth and Fifth Amendment confession cases)
- United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (addresses when attenuation analysis is required following warrantless home arrests)