United States v. Rogers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20122
1st Cir.2011Background
- Rogers, a non-commissioned Naval officer, sold a computer containing what buyer believed to be child pornography and was subsequently investigated by local, state, and federal authorities including NCIS.
- A warrant allowed a search of Rogers's condo, conducted while Rogers was at work; military officers arranged his return home under orders from a superior.
- Rogers and his wife were in the home during initial questioning by local, state, and NCIS personnel; he was not warned of rights at that time.
- During the house encounter, Rogers was questioned and provided statements; a later at-station interview occurred after Miranda-like warnings.
- The district court held Rogers was not in custody for Miranda purposes during either questioning, ruling Miranda did not apply.
- The First Circuit concluded the house questioning was custodial and violated Miranda, ordered remand to address curative warnings under Seibert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rogers in custody during the house questioning? | Rogers argues custody due to military coercion and control of the scene. | State/local authorities controlled the scene; no custody invoked by Miranda. | Yes; custody found, Miranda warnings required. |
| Was Rogers in custody during the station questioning after warnings? | Custody continued; coercive atmosphere persisted despite later warnings. | Warnings and voluntary nature of interrogation negate custody. | Custody present; need to evaluate warnings' efficacy. |
| Were the military-style warnings effective to cure the prior unwarned questioning under Seibert? | Warnings insufficient; pre-warning statements taint subsequent ones. | Warnings adequate given circumstances and voluntary waiver doctrine. | Remand to determine cure under Seibert. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ellison, 632 F.3d 727 (1st Cir. 2010) (custody and coercion analysis guiding Miranda applicability)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (special curative requirement for unwarned followed by warned questioning)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (voluntary and knowing waiver standard after casual questioning)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1995) (test for whether a suspect felt free to terminate interrogation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (custodial interrogation framework and freedom to leave)
- United States v. Schneider, 14 M.J. 189 (C.M.A. 1982) (military coercion and subtle pressure to talk)
- United States v. Ravenel, 26 M.J. 344 (C.M.A. 1988) (subtle pressures in military interrogation contexts)
- United States v. Baird, 851 F.2d 376 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (distinguishing assurances of freedom within military context)