United States v. Swan, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20843

Background

Carole Swan, a long-time selectperson for Chelsea, Maine, was investigated for directing kickbacks from inflated town sand contracts; a sting by local deputies resulted in Swan accepting marked cash.
Deputies Reardon and Bucknam confronted Swan in a laundromat parking lot, recovered the bag of money, and suggested discussing the matter at the sheriff’s office; Swan voluntarily drove to the station with Bucknam.
At the station the deputies told Swan she was not under arrest, was free to leave at any time, and could decline to speak; they briefly held her cellphone, returned it when she needed to call her husband, and left the room while she called.
During a roughly 90-minute interview Swan made incriminating statements, including admitting receipt of about $25,000 in kickbacks.
Swan was indicted on Hobbs Act extortion, tax fraud, and false statements; she moved to suppress her stationhouse statements arguing they were the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and/or involuntary.
The magistrate and district courts denied suppression; Swan was convicted on multiple counts and appealed solely on the suppression/ voluntariness ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Swan was in custody at the station such that Miranda warnings were required	United States: interview was non-custodial because deputies told Swan she was not under arrest and free to leave	Swan: prior parking-lot confrontation, deputies’ retention of her phone, and being driven to the station made her effectively in custody	Court: Non-custodial — reasonable person would feel free to stop the interview and leave
Whether Miranda covers statements made after an earlier custodial encounter	United States: custody status focuses on circumstances when the challenged statements were made	Swan: initial parking-lot encounter was custodial, tainting later stationhouse questioning	Court: Even if parking-lot encounter was custodial, station interview was non-custodial so Miranda not required
Whether deputies’ temporary retention of Swan’s cellphone rendered the interview custodial	United States: temporary phone retention (with permission and return to permit call) did not amount to custody	Swan: withholding phone and sending call to voicemail showed coercive control	Court: Phone retention was not dispositive and did not convert the interview into custody
Whether Swan’s statements were involuntary	United States: interview tone, duration, and lack of physical restraint show voluntariness; suggestions of leniency are not coercive	Swan: promises or implication of leniency overbore her will	Court: Statements were voluntary; officers’ comments about cooperation were permissible and did not overbear will

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct.) (voluntariness standard for confessions)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (Sup. Ct.) (custody is determined by whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
United States v. McCarty, 475 F.3d 39 (1st Cir.) (focus on custody at time of interrogation; release from restraints can render later questioning non-custodial)
United States v. Masse, 816 F.2d 805 (1st Cir.) (factors for custody determination: location, officers present, restraints, duration/character)
United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153 (1st Cir.) (voluntary stationhouse interviews need not trigger Miranda)
United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428 (1st Cir.) (interview tone, duration, and lack of restraint inform voluntariness and custody analyses)
United States v. Infante, 701 F.3d 386 (1st Cir.) (confirming non-custodial interviews where defendants were told they were not under arrest)
United States v. Ellison, 632 F.3d 727 (1st Cir.) (same)
United States v. Jacques, 744 F.3d 804 (1st Cir.) (officer promises to inform prosecutors of cooperation do not render statements involuntary)