United States v. Vado, 87 F. Supp. 3d 472

Background

Early morning search of Matthew Vado’s Manhattan apartment on June 17, 2014, by ~8–10 FBI agents executing a search warrant for suspected child‑pornography offenses. Vado was not arrested at the time.
After a protective sweep and pat‑down, agents escorted Vado to a bedroom where two agents (Thompson and Spivack) conducted a ~40‑minute interview; other agents completed the search and examined devices.
Agents testified they informed Vado he was not under arrest and was free to leave before questioning; they read Miranda warnings and gave him an Advice of Rights form which he read aloud and signed.
Vado initially said he wanted a lawyer; agents briefly left the room, then returned and told him they could not initiate questioning but he could voluntarily speak if he chose; Vado agreed and made inculpatory statements until he later repeated his request for counsel and questioning stopped.
Vado moved to suppress the statements, arguing (1) the interview was custodial and agents continued questioning after he invoked his right to counsel, and (2) his statements were involuntary (agents allegedly threatened he would be confined to the bedroom or precluded from telling his side if he persisted in requesting counsel).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Vado "in custody" for Miranda purposes during the bedroom interview?	Vado: multiple agents, isolation from companion, partial door closure, directed movement and a guarded presence made the setting custodial.	Gov’t: interview occurred in Vado’s home, he was told he was not under arrest and free to leave, no restraints or drawn weapons, ~40‑minute duration — not custodial.	Court: Not custodial — interview at home, explicit statements that he was free to leave, no restraints, brief duration.
Did agents violate Vado’s invoked right to counsel by resuming questioning?	Vado: After invoking counsel, agents made statements that effectively reinitiated interrogation and induced him to speak.	Gov’t: Because interrogation was noncustodial, Miranda right to counsel had not attached; agents’ brief comments did not unlawfully reinitiate custodial interrogation.	Court: No violation — because Vado was not in custody, Miranda protections had not attached, so no Edwards violation.
Were Vado’s statements involuntary?	Vado: Agents told him he would be confined to the bedroom and unable to tell his side if he insisted on counsel, coercing a waiver.	Gov’t: Agents deny making those statements; even if said, noncustodial context and Miranda warnings/Advice form preclude a finding of involuntariness.	Court: Statements voluntary — credited agents’ denials and found no "special circumstances" rendering noncustodial statements involuntary.
Burden of proof for waiver/voluntariness	Vado argues government cannot meet burden to show valid waiver / voluntariness.	Gov’t: Met burden by preponderance through agent testimony, Advice form, and circumstances.	Court: Government met its burden by preponderance; denied suppression.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct.) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Sup. Ct.) (knowing and voluntary waiver standard)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (Sup. Ct.) (custody inquiry objective; consider circumstances)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (Sup. Ct.) (two‑part custody test)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (Sup. Ct.) (noncustodial interrogation distinct from Miranda)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (post‑invocation rule barring further interrogation until counsel present)
Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (Sup. Ct.) (noncustodial statements and voluntariness)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (Sup. Ct.) (government burden to prove waiver)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (Sup. Ct.) (knowing waiver inquiry)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (Sup. Ct.) (Edwards/limits on reinitiation rules)
United States v. Mast, 735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir.) (noncustodial misleading statements do not automatically render confession involuntary)
United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659 (2d Cir.) (interrogation at home usually noncustodial)
United States v. Badmus, 325 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.) (importance of informing suspect he was free to leave)
United States v. Romaszko, 253 F.3d 757 (2d Cir.) (examples where home interview found custodial)