United States v. Swanson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- In 2009 Swanson was arrested for unlawful firearm possession and confronted with a state turn-over order to surrender firearms as a condition of bond.
- Police did not give Miranda warnings before presenting Swanson with the turn-over order and questioning him at the house about firearms.
- Swanson admitted at the house that there were firearms under his car seat, which led to a car search and later discovery of a shotgun.
- Swanson wasMirandized only after the initial custodial statements; a subsequent written interview occurred after transfer to another department.
- Swanson moved to suppress the gun and related statements as violations of his Fifth Amendment rights; the district court denied the motion, Swanson pleaded guilty conditionally to appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding Swanson’s initial statement resulted from unwarned custodial interrogation and tainted the post-warning statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the gun and related statements were obtained via unwarned custodial interrogation | Swanson | Swanson | gun and statements suppressed |
| Whether the post-Miranda written statement was tainted by the initial unwarned statement | Swanson | Swanson | taint not cured; suppression required |
| Whether the absence of Fifth Amendment invocation can be excused by the penalty exception | Swanson | Swanson | not decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (penalty exception analyzed for compelled disclosures)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (Fifth Amendment privilege applies beyond trial; invoke privilege to avoid self-incrimination)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (definition of interrogation includes words or actions likely to elicit incriminating response)
- United States v. Abdulla, 294 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2002) (objective reasonableness of statements likely to elicit incriminating response)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (physical evidence obtained from voluntary statements may be admitted)
- Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (U.S. Supreme Court 1987) (voluntariness of statements where warnings may follow after initial confession)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (break in the stream of events required to admit post-warning statements)
- Watson v. DeTella, 122 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 1997) (consideration of factors for voluntariness under Miranda-related analysis)
- United States v. Cranley, 350 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2003) (penalty-exception context and invocation of Fifth Amendment rights)
- United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (testimony issues related to compelled statements and immunized responses)
- United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (testimonial aspects of production of incriminating items)
- United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1996) (treatment of Fifth Amendment privilege and custodial interrogation)