United States v. O'Neal, 17 F.4th 236

Larry O'Neal, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer, was investigated by HSI after two child‑pornography files were associated with an IP address assigned to him.
HSI viewed one file depicting a prepubescent child and prepared an affidavit; a search warrant for O'Neal's home, vehicles, and person was issued and executed on January 19, 2018 while he was at work.
During the search, agents arranged a workplace interview; O'Neal was taken to a small conference room, spoke with three agents for about 2.5 hours (door closed but not locked), was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave, and signed Beckwith warnings; he admitted searching for/downloading child pornography.
He later waived Miranda before a polygraph and was arrested after the polygraph.
The affidavit used to obtain the warrant misstated the download date of the viewed video (dec. 28, 2017 instead of oct. 3, 2017); the government later provided a corrected affidavit and used the correct date in pretrial submissions.
O'Neal was convicted of possession of child pornography; post‑trial he sought a Franks hearing about the affidavit error, which the district court denied; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the workplace interview was custodial for Miranda purposes	Gov’t: interview was noncustodial — private neutral setting, agents said he was free to leave, no physical restraint	O'Neal: presence of multiple agents, closed room, supervisor lured him in, reasonable person would feel not free to leave	Court: Not custodial; agents' explicit statements that he was free to leave and other factors rendered statements admissible
Whether a Franks hearing was required for the incorrect date in the affidavit	Gov’t: date error was negligent/immaterial; defense delayed raising it and showed no good cause	O'Neal: misstatement made probable cause dubious; hearing required to probe veracity	Court: Denied Franks hearing — motion untimely and defendant failed to make the requisite preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsity or materiality; probable cause would survive correction

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes requirement of warnings for custodial interrogation)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (custody inquiry uses objective reasonable‑person test)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (entitles defendant to hearing only after substantial preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsehood and materiality)
Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (discusses noncustodial warnings in administrative contexts)
United States v. Rogers, 659 F.3d 74 (custody can exist despite verbal assurances when other circumstances negate freedom to leave)
United States v. Swan, 842 F.3d 28 (statements that suspect is free to leave weigh against custody)
United States v. McLellan, 792 F.3d 200 (Franks preliminary‑showing standard explained)
United States v. Arias, 848 F.3d 504 (Franks standards and timeliness considerations)
United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44 (negligent errors in affidavits do not compel Franks hearing)
United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60 (standard of review for denial of Franks hearing)