United States v. Tarvell Jiovon Douglas
688 F. App'x 658
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 1, 2016, Officer Martinez stopped a car for traffic violations; Douglas was a passenger and previously known to Martinez from off-duty encounters.
- Martinez learned via radio that Douglas was on bond and suspected of drug involvement; a K-9 alerted to controlled substances and occupants were handcuffed.
- During an initial, unwarned on-scene exchange Martinez asked about drugs and weapons; Douglas admitted drugs and said a gun was in a backpack and asked to "let it slide."
- Martinez then read Miranda warnings, after which Douglas again admitted ownership of the drugs and gun; officers seized a backpack with drugs, a scale, packaging, a 9mm pistol, and cash.
- Douglas moved to suppress pre- and post-Miranda statements; the district court suppressed pre-Miranda statements but denied suppression of post-Miranda statements, finding no deliberate two-step interrogation strategy.
- Douglas pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the partial denial; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Douglas's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used a deliberate two-step interrogation (Seibert) | Martinez deliberately withheld Miranda to elicit admissions, then Mirandized to obtain repeat confessions | Martinez did not employ a calculated question-first strategy; interaction was atypical due to prior acquaintance | District court did not err; no deliberate two-step strategy found; Elstad governs |
| Whether post-Miranda statements were knowingly and voluntarily made (Elstad) | Post-warning statements were involuntary (raised for first time on appeal) | Post-warning waiver and statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances | Court inferred implicit finding of voluntariness; no plain error; statements admissible |
| Standard of review for district court factfinding on deliberateness | (Douglas) Mixed question of law and fact; de novo review | (Gov) Factual finding; clear error review | Court did not decide but affirmed outcome under either standard |
| Whether any coercive police conduct required suppression beyond Seibert | Coercion present due to officer presence, implied threats, and exploit of relationship | No coercion: short detention, no force, no promises, and district court credited officer's testimony | No plain error; totality indicates waiver was free and deliberate |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court) (establishes Miranda warnings requirement)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court) (post-warning confession admissible if knowingly and voluntarily made despite earlier unwarned admission)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (Supreme Court) (suppresses post-warning confession when police use a deliberate question-first two-step to undermine Miranda)
- United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.) (applies Seibert/Elstad principles; courts examine totality of circumstances for two-step interrogation)
- United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (voluntariness of confession reviewed de novo)
- Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (totality-of-circumstances factors for voluntariness inquiry)