United States v. Perrin
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21836
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Perrin admitted possessing child pornography during questioning by ICE agent Scherer in Perrin's bedroom after a media search at Perrin's residence.
- Agents executed a search warrant at Perrin's small Sioux Falls house, surrounding Perrin, his mother, and other residents; the scene was crowded and police-dominated.
- Agent Scherer advised the residents they could leave and that those who stayed would be questioned, and Perrin volunteered to speak privately in his bedroom.
- The bedroom questioning lasted about ten minutes; Perrin was not handcuffed, touched, or threatened, and the agent did not provide additional Miranda warnings at that point.
- Perrin was ultimately not arrested during or immediately after the bedroom questioning, and the district court denied Perrin’s suppression motion, leading to this appeal.
- The central issue is whether Perrin was in custody such that Miranda warnings were required before the bedroom interrogation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Perrin in custody for Miranda purposes while questioned in his bedroom? | Perrin asserts custody due to police dominance and lack of freedom to leave. | Perrin argues the prior no-custody admonitions and the bedroom context were non-custodial. | Not in custody; warnings not required. |
| Did the prior no-custody admonitions affect the custody analysis of the bedroom questioning? | Admonitions were not repeated individually before the bedroom interrogation. | Ten-minute gap undermines reliance on a second warning. | Admonitions were weighty but not dispositive; still not custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2004) (custody analysis and non-arrest circumstances guidance)
- United States v. Lowen, 647 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2011) (consideration of surrounding circumstances in custody inquiry)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) (age and perception in custody determination; reasonable person standard)
- United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1990) (Griffin factors for custody not a mandatory checklist)
- United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004 (en banc)) (de novo review of custody as mixed question of law and fact)
- United States v. Galceran, 301 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2002) (voluntariness/totality of circumstances framework)