United States v. Alvarez
4:10-cr-00032 | N.D. Ga. | Jun 17, 2011
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
JOSEPH ALLEN BALDWIN, NO. 4:10-CR-032-07-HLM-WEJ
Defendant.
NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on defendant Joseph Allen Baldwin’s Motion
to Suppress Statements and Motion for Jackson/Denno Hearing [216], and his
Amended Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion for Jackson/Denno Hearing
and Motion to Suppress Evidence [242]. The Court conducted an evidentiary
hearing on said Motions on April 8, 2011 [243], which has been transcribed [265].
The parties have briefed the matter. (See Br. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Suppres
[277] (“Def.’s Br.”); Gov’t Resp. to Def.’s Mot. to Suppress [284] (“Govt.’s Br.”).)
On the basis of the testimony and evidence produced at that hearing, the undersigned
REPORTS that defendant voluntarily provided statements to law enforcement and
consented to the search of his home. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that defendant’s Motions [216, 242] be DENIED.
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 27
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Defendant’s Arrest
Following the grand jury’s return of a superceding indictment that included
charges against the defendant, the undersigned issued an arrest warrant [104] for
him. Special Agent (“SA”) Christopher A. Mueller of the Drug Enforcement
Administration executed that arrest warrant on February 2, 2011, at the defendant’s
residence, located at 1101 Carline Road in Rossville, Georgia. (Tr. 8, 31-32.) There
was no search warrant for the residence. (Id. at 32.)
At about 8:30 a.m. on February 2, SA Mueller and three other law
enforcement officers (all armed and dressed in raid attire) went to the defendant’s
residence; while the others took positions around the house, SA Mueller knocked
loudly on the front door. (Tr. 8-9, 53, 82.) As he knocked, SA Mueller announced
police, but it took a few minutes for Mr. Baldwin to come to door. (Id. at 9-10.)1
When Mr. Baldwin opened the door, SA Mueller notified him of the arrest warrant.
(Id. at 11.) Upon hearing that news, Mr. Baldwin stepped back into the house and
1
When he came to the door, the defendant was dressed in pajama bottoms and
a blue T-shirt. (Tr. 33.) He explained to SA Mueller that he was delayed in
answering the door because he had been in the shower. (Id. at 34.) Mr. Baldwin
repeated that explanation in his direct testimony. (Id. at 63-64.)
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 27
allowed SA Mueller to enter along with co-case agent David Gilleland. (Id. at 11,
34, 64.)2
Mr. Baldwin then made inquiry as to why he was being arrested. (Tr. 12, 38.)
SA Mueller replied that the charge was distribution of oxycodone. (Id.)3 Mr.
Baldwin asserted that he had not been engaged in such conduct. (Id. at 12.)
Nevertheless, SA Mueller responded that he had an arrest warrant for him; agents
then cuffed the defendant with his hands in the front using two sets of handcuffs.
(Id.)4 Mr. Baldwin was neither thrown to the ground nor up against a wall. (Id.)5
2
SA Mueller testified that his gun was drawn as he knocked on the door; when
the door opened, neither he nor Agent Gilleland pointed their guns at Mr. Baldwin.
As soon as Mr. Baldwin allowed the officers to enter the residence, SA Mueller
holstered his weapon. (Tr. 11-12.)
3
Mr. Baldwin asserted that, in answer to his question, the agent with the black
beard (i.e., Agent Gilleland) stated that he had been indicted by a grand jury on
conspiracy charges to sell a million pills. (Tr. 64, 66.)
4
Because Mr. Baldwin is a large man, agents used two sets of cuffs to make
him more comfortable. (Tr. 12, 24.)
5
SA Mueller identified the defendant in open court as the man he arrested on
February 2, 2011. (Tr. 31.)
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 4 of 27
Once Mr. Baldwin was restrained, SA Mueller asked him if there was anyone
else in the house. (Tr. 13, 64.)6 Mr. Baldwin replied that his wife was in the
bedroom. (Id. at 13, 64-65.) In response to SA Mueller’s questions of whether there
were weapons, cash, or narcotics in the residence, Mr. Baldwin replied, “No, you can
go ahead and search.” (Id. at 13, 37.)7 The defendant also called to his wife, who
was in the master bedroom, to come out. (Id. at 13.) With coaxing from the agents,
she eventually appeared, dressed in a T-shirt and plaid pants. (Id. at 13-14, 33-34,
65.) Mrs. Baldwin did not protest her husband’s restraint. (Id. at 13.) Indeed, SA
Mueller testified that Mr. Baldwin did not resist the cuffs being placed on him, that
he was cooperative all day, and that all persons involved acted calmly. (Id.)
6
The house is small. (Tr. 14.) One enters through a great room, which opens
into a long room, the left side of which is a living room, and the right side of which
is a kitchen. (Id.) It has two bedrooms. (Id. at 56.)
7
On subsequent questioning from the AUSA, SA Mueller testified that Mr.
Baldwin said, “You guys can look or words to that effect.” (Tr. 14.) However, SA
Mueller did not specifically ask to search the house at that point. (Id.) Indeed, SA
Mueller clarified that, although he had oral consent to search at this time, he did not
begin a search until after Mr. Baldwin signed the consent to search form, discussed
infra. (Id. at 37.) Mr. Baldwin’s testimony is that he told SA Mueller that he had
weapons in the house for protection, and in response to questions about where the
guns were located, he replied that they were in the bedroom safe, but that his wife
was in there getting dressed. (Id. at 64-65, 76-78.)
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 5 of 27
B. The Interview at the Defendant’s Home
SA Mueller wanted to speak privately to Mr. Baldwin, so he asked the
defendant if he would step back to the bedroom with him. (Tr. 14-15, 66.)8 The
defendant, who was still cuffed but very calm and collected, followed SA Mueller
into the back bedroom, with Agent Gilleland following the defendant. (Id. at 15, 34,
38, 66.) The bedroom was small and crowded. (Id. at 16.) In addition to a bed and
dresser, the room was crammed with a computer desk and chair, and a closed and
locked gun safe; a number of boxes filled with clothing were lined up along a wall.
(Id. at 16, 32.) Mr. Baldwin sat down on the bed. (Id. at 16.) SA Mueller sat down
near him in a narrow space between the dresser and the bed with his back to the wall.
(Id.) Agent Gilleland stood near the door. (Id. at 16-17.)
SA Mueller began by explaining to the defendant that he (Mueller) was going
to read him the Miranda rights before asking him any questions. (Tr. 36.) He then
showed Mr. Baldwin a DEA form 13A, which is that agency’s Miranda waiver form.
8
SA Mueller testified that it is easier to speak with a suspect in private, away
from other people. (Tr. 15.) Moreover, the defendant’s wife was present, and SA
Mueller did not know how much knowledge she had about what her husband may
have been doing. (Id.) Finally, SA Mueller did not want to embarrass the defendant
by questioning him in front of his wife, his young daughter, and the two officers who
had not been part of the investigation. (Id.) A private setting might create better
rapport and allow them to be more candid with each other. (Id.)
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 6 of 27
(Id. at 17, 36, 45; see also Govt. Ex. 1 (admitted at Tr. 18-19).) SA Mueller read
each of the rights printed on the form to the defendant and asked him if he
understood his rights. (Id. at 17, 36-37, 45, 54.) Mr. Baldwin shook his head in the
affirmative, and when SA Mueller stated that he needed a verbal response, the
defendant replied, “Yes.” (Id. at 17, 36, 54.)9 SA Mueller then asked Mr. Baldwin
if he would talk to them, and if he would, to sign the form. (Id. at 17.) The
defendant then signed the form with no apparent reservation. (Id.) SA Mueller and
Agent Gilleland signed the form as witnesses. (Id.) The form reflects that it was
executed at 8:40 a.m. (Id. at 53, 86.)10 Mr. Baldwin agrees that this form bears his
signature. (Id. at 78-79.) The defendant testified that he reads and writes the English
language and understands the rights printed on the waiver form. (Id. at 79-80.)
The defendant also signed a “Consent to Search” form. (Tr. 21, 39; see also
Govt. Ex. 2 (admitted at Tr. 22-23).) SA Mueller noted that, although Mr. Baldwin
had earlier given officers permission to search, he asked the defendant again if it
were alright for agents to search the residence. (Id. at 21.) Mr. Baldwin replied that
9
Mr. Baldwin testified that he is familiar with the Miranda rights and
understands their meaning. (Tr. 83-84.)
10
SA Mueller was adamant that he asked no substantive questions of Mr.
Baldwin until after he executed the Miranda waiver form. (Tr. 53-54.)
6
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 7 of 27
it was. (Id.) SA Mueller then placed the residence address (1101 Carline) on the
blank form and offered it to the defendant to sign if he consented to a search. (Id.)
The form reflects the defendant’s signature. (Govt. Ex. 2.) To the best of SA
Mueller’s information, 1101 Carline Road was Mr. Baldwin’s residence. (Id. at 21-
22.)11
Agents then searched the residence (including the safe) and seized some cash
(in excess of $10,000). (Tr. 23, 38.)12 SA Mueller suspected that the cash was
derived from selling pills. (Id. at 48-50, 58-59.)13 However, agents did not begin
their search until after Mr. Baldwin executed the consent to search form. (Id. at 55-
56.) Mr. Baldwin agrees that this form bears his signature. (Id. at 79.) He also
11
Mr. Baldwin testified that he resided at 1101 Carline Road. (Tr. 62.)
12
There was no search warrant for the safe. (Tr. 32.) SA Mueller testified that
Mr. Baldwin’s signed consent to search gave agents permission to search the
residence (including the locked safe found therein) and the cars parked outside. (Id.
at 32, 56.) SA Mueller did not ask Mr. Baldwin for specific permission to search the
safe, but did ask him open it (which he did). (Id. at 32-33.) The safe was searched
in the defendant’s presence. (Id. at 57.)
13
During the search, agents also seized Mr. Baldwin’s wallet, items located
in the wallet (including cash, a small green piece of paper that appeared to be a payee
sheet or drug ledger, and some business cards), and a cell phone. (Tr. 47-48, 50-51.)
SA Mueller asked the defendant for permission to look through his phone, which
was granted. Both the wallet and the cell phone were searched in the defendant’s
presence. (Id. at 56-57.) Mr. Baldwin denies that SA Mueller searched the wallet
in his presence. (Id. at 71-72.)
7
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 8 of 27
agrees that he was able to read and understand the words found on that consent to
search form. (Id. at 80-81.)
After the defendant signed these forms, and after other agents started the
search and entered the safe, SA Mueller (assisted by Agent Gilleland) began the
interview with Mr. Baldwin concerning his involvement in the drug conspiracy. (Tr.
19, 35-36, 38-39, 51-52, 56.) SA Mueller testified that the defendant appeared to
understand his questions and was willing to answer them. (Id. at 19.) At some point
in the interview, SA Mueller perceived that Mr. Baldwin was being less than truthful.
(Id. at 20.) In an effort to elicit more truthful testimony, SA Mueller explained the
charges to the defendant, their severity, and the extent of the DEA’s investigation.
(Id.) He testified that he did this in an effort to get the defendant to describe
truthfully his involvement in the conspiracy. (Id.)
On cross-examination, SA Mueller testified that, at some point in the
interview, either he or Agent Gilleland told Mr. Baldwin that he was involved in a
conspiracy that had distributed a million oxycodone pills. (Tr. 39.)14 SA Mueller
14
SA Mueller testified that, during the course of his investigation, he
developed information which led him to believe that more than one million pills had
been distributed by the Alvarez organization. In fact, one person had admitted to
distributing 800,000 pills; thus, he believed it would be easy to prove that a million
pills had been distributed by the twelve conspirators over the five-year life of the
8
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 9 of 27
recalled telling Mr. Baldwin that the DEA’s investigation had led to many
defendants, including Johnny Alvarez, whose telephone had been the subject of a
wiretap. (Id.) The agent shared with the defendant his belief that the Government
could show that, in the course of the conspiracy, over a million oxycodone pills had
been illegally distributed. (Id.) Mr. Baldwin expressed surprise, and asserted that
there was no way that he was involved in the distribution of a million pills. (Id. at
39, 41.)
SA Mueller accepted Mr. Baldwin’s assertion, and replied that it would be a
good thing for the defendant if he could give them an idea of how many of those
million pills he was responsible for distributing. (Tr. 39-40.) SA Mueller testified
that, based on his understanding of conspiracy law, if the defendant did not provide
information about his relative culpability, he potentially could be responsible for the
entire one million pills. (Id. at 40-41.) However, SA Mueller testified that Mr.
Baldwin was not told that he needed to give the number of pills for which he was
responsible or he would be charged with distributing one million pills. (Id. at 40.)
SA Mueller denied that either he or Agent Gilleland told Mr. Baldwin that they
conspiracy as it operated in numerous states. (Tr. 54-55.) Thus, SA Mueller did not
“make up” the million pill number in order to elicit statements from Mr. Baldwin.
(Id. at 55.)
9
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 10 of 27
would “go easy” on him if he cooperated and that they needed a “big number” from
him if he wanted to help himself. (Id. at 40-41, 44-45.) However, agents did inform
Mr. Baldwin that this interview was an opportunity for him to make clear what
position he played in the conspiracy; otherwise, he could be charged with a full
amount in the conspiracy or be found culpable for the full amount. (Id. at 41.)
According to SA Mueller, he told Mr. Baldwin that if he provided agents with a
“believable number” of pills for which he was responsible, they would tell
prosecutors and he would likely not be culpable for the entire million pills. (Id. at
42-43.)
In response to this conversation, Mr. Baldwin told SA Mueller that he believed
that he was responsible for selling 20,000 pills that he had received from defendant
Alvarez. (Tr. 42, 72, 81.) He expressly disclaimed responsibility for one million
pills. (Id. at 42.) As noted above, Mr. Baldwin provided this pill count after SA
Mueller had told him that he could be held responsible for a million pills. (Id.)
However, SA Mueller told Mr. Baldwin that this number (i.e., 20,000 pills) was not
10
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 11 of 27
believable. (Id. at 43.)15 Mr. Baldwin did not revise his number in response to SA
Mueller’s challenge. (Id.)16
Mr. Baldwin’s recollection of the interview is much different than that
provided by SA Mueller. He claims that when he and the agents reached the
bedroom, one of them said, “Help us help you.” (Tr. 66.) They explained that this
was his only opportunity to help himself, and that he had been charged with a million
pills and could be culpable for the entire amount. (Id. at 66-67.) Agent Gilleland
then reportedly said, “Well, you need to give us a good number” or a “large number.”
(Id. at 67-68, 81.) The defendant responded that he had never even seen a million
pills. (Id. at 67.) Mr. Baldwin then claims that, to help himself, he just blurted out,
without thinking, the number 20,000. (Id. at 67, 81.)17
15
In his direct testimony (summarized supra p. 8), SA Mueller said this is
where he perceived Mr. Baldwin as being less than truthful. (Tr. 43.)
16
At a subsequent interview at the jail, discussed infra, Mr. Baldwin revised
this number of pills down to 10,000. (Tr. 43, 82-83.) He claimed to have visited Mr.
Alvarez’s home ten times and received 1,000 pills each time. (Id. at 43-44.)
However, Mr. Baldwin never denied trafficking in pills. (Id. at 83.)
17
Mr. Baldwin apparently did some “thinking.” He testified that he processes
numbers quickly. He thought that one percent of one million would be 10,000,
which he believed would not be a large enough number to satisfy the agents, so he
doubled it to 20,000. (Tr. 67-68, 81-82.)
11
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 12 of 27
The defendant also testified that, as Agent Gilleland was demanding a good
number from him, SA Mueller said, “Let me read him his rights” or “We need to stop
and read him his rights.” (Tr. 68.) Mr. Baldwin asserted that “he was trying to hold
him off for whatever reason.” (Id.) In response to his attorney’s request for more
clarity in his testimony, Mr. Baldwin stated that “Agent Gilleland was trying to hold
off Agent Mueller at the time.” (Id.) He claims that the agents did not stop and read
him his rights. (Id. at 69.) One of the agents asked him if he knew his rights, and the
defendant replied that he had seen them on TV. (Id.)
However, defendant claims that his rights were not read to him. (Tr. 69.)
Instead, Agent Gilleland directed him to open the safe (or at least he thought that was
what happened next). (Id.) Despite knowing his rights, Mr. Baldwin did not protest
the agents’ failure to provide Miranda warnings or assert his right to remain silent or
to have an attorney present. (Id. at 85.) He testified that he might have been asked
to open the safe upon entering the bedroom, and that he kept asking (about five
times) if he had to, because he had heard that officers needed a special search warrant
12
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 13 of 27
to open a safe. (Id. at 69-70, 84.) Given his protests, Agent Gilleland repeatedly told
the defendant that he had to open the safe. (Id. at 70, 84-85.)18
Mr. Baldwin also asserts that he did not sign the Miranda waiver form (Govt.
Ex. 1) or the consent to search form (Govt. Ex. 2) until near the end of the interview
and just before being led out of the bedroom. (Tr. 67, 70-75, 85.) He claims that the
agents told him that they had not found anything illegal in their search and for him
to sign the forms to show that he was cooperating. (Id. at 71, 73.) According to Mr.
Baldwin, the forms were not read to him. (Id. at 73.) Instead, he asserts that agents
handed him blanks forms and directed him to sign them. (Id.)
The interview lasted about forty-five minutes. (Tr. 20, 72.) SA Mueller
testified that neither he nor any other agent yelled at Mr. Baldwin, threatened him,
made him any promises, or pointed a firearm at him. (Id. at 20-21.) At no point did
Mr. Baldwin ask the agents to stop the search. (Id. at 57-58.) After the interview and
search concluded, agents gathered everyone in the living room, removed the
defendant’s cuffs, and allowed him to speak to his wife regarding some personal
matters and to play briefly with his child. (Id. at 23-24, 74-75.) SA Mueller also
18
When he opened the safe, Mr. Baldwin asserts that agents found $9,400 of
the $10,000 in cash that they seized. (Tr. 71.) Mr. Baldwin told SA Mueller that the
cash came from automobile sales. (Id. at 52.)
13
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 14 of 27
informed Mr. Baldwin that, if he were released on bond, then he would have to make
arrangements for someone else to safeguard the numerous guns agents had
discovered during the consent search of the residence. (Id. at 24, 47.)19 The
defendant then signed an evidence bag which contained the cash seized from the
residence. (Id. at 24, 75-76.)
C. Interview of the Defendant During Transport and at the Jail
Officers then placed Mr. Baldwin (who was handcuffed in the front) in SA
Mueller’s vehicle, and he and Agent Gilleland transported the defendant to the
Walker County Jail. (Tr. 24, 75, 82, 86.) The time was about 10:30 a.m. (Id. at 24.)
During the thirty-minute drive to the jail, SA Mueller discussed with Mr. Baldwin
whether he had obtained pills from a defendant other than the suspected lead
supplier, Mr. Alvarez. (Id. at 24-25, 86-87.) In responding to those questions, Mr.
Baldwin appeared to understand SA Mueller. (Id. at 25.) During this drive, neither
SA Mueller nor any other agent yelled at the defendant, threatened him, made any
promises to him, or drove in such an erratic way as to frighten him. (Id. at 25-26.)
19
Guns were located in each of defendant’s cars, under a mattress, and in the
safe. (Tr. 46-47.) The weapons were not seized. (Id. at 47, 50.) Mr. Baldwin
asserted that the guns were for his protection; SA Mueller could not tie the guns to
any drug crime. (Id. at 49-50.)
14
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 15 of 27
Upon arrival at the jail, officers placed Mr. Baldwin in a holding cell and
removed the handcuffs. (Tr. 26.) About four hours later, SA Mueller removed the
defendant from that cell, led him to an interview room, and questioned him again
along with Agent Gilleland. (Id. at 26-27, 87.) The defendant was not restrained in
any way, and SA Mueller was not armed. (Id. at 27, 87.) All three gentlemen sat
around a conference table and talked. (Id. at 27.) Mr. Baldwin again made
statements in response to SA Mueller’s questions, providing information about his
meetings with Mr. Alvarez and about his firearms; he appeared to understand the
questions. (Id. at 27-28, 72, 78, 87.) The interview at the jail lasted about thirty
minutes. (Id. at 28.) During this interview, neither SA Mueller nor any other agent
yelled at the defendant, threatened him, made any promises to him, or pointed a
firearm at him. (Id. at 28.) The interview ended when Mr. Baldwin announced that
he was not answering any more questions. (Id. at 29.)
At the conclusion of that interview, SA Mueller and Agent Gilleland escorted
the defendant back to the holding cell. (Tr. 28-29.) At about 5:30 p.m., all the
defendants who had been arrested that day were placed in a van, transported to the
Floyd County Jail, and booked in there in anticipation of their appearance in federal
court the next day. (Id. at 29.)
15
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 16 of 27
SA Mueller testified that, from his first encounter with the defendant at 8:30
a.m. on February 2 through the interview at the jail later that day, he never appeared
to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. (Tr. 29-30.) SA Mueller also asserted
that he never did anything in an attempt to intimidate Mr. Baldwin. (Id. at 31.)
According to SA Mueller, the defendant never appeared scared and acted no more
nervous than anyone arrested by the DEA might be. (Id. at 30.) He never appeared
confused, and never complained about being tired. (Id.) Although Mr. Baldwin
complained about being ill early that morning due to acid reflux, agents made sure
that he had his medication; however, he never complained about feeling ill during
any interview. (Id.) He also never complained about being hungry. (Id. at 30-31.)
He appeared to understand the English language and the questions that he was being
asked. (Id. at 54.) Finally, at no point on February 2 did the defendant ask for an
attorney. (Id. at 31.)
II. THE CHARGING DOCUMENT
On February 1, 2011, the grand jury returned a First Superceding Indictment
charging Mr. Baldwin with membership in a multi-defendant oxycodone distribution
conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). (Supr.
16
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 17 of 27
Indict. [53] Count One.) That Indictment also contains a forfeiture provision against
Mr. Baldwin.
III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Mr. Baldwin asserts that any statements he made to law enforcement should
be suppressed because they were made in response to interrogation without the
benefit of Miranda warnings. He also asserts that his statements should be
suppressed because they were coerced, i.e., made under threat of heightened
prosecution and in response to a promise for benefit in exchange for cooperation.
Finally, Mr. Baldwin argues that any physical evidence seized during the search of
his home should be suppressed because the search was illegal and went beyond the
scope of any consent that may have been given. (Def.’s Br. 6-13.)
The Government responds that Miranda warnings were administered before
defendant made any statements in response to law enforcement questioning. Further,
after receiving those warnings, defendant voluntarily made statements and consented
to the search of his residence. (Govt.’s Br. 8-15.)
17
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 18 of 27
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Defendant’s Statements
In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368" date_filed="1964-06-22" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Jackson v. Denno">378 U.S. 368, 376-77 (1964), the Supreme Court held
that a defendant has a constitutional right to a fair hearing and an independent and
reliable determination of the voluntariness of a confession before it is allowed to be
heard by a jury. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a) codifies the Jackson v. Denno requirement
for criminal prosecutions and provides that, before a confession or self-incriminating
statement is received in evidence, “the trial judge shall, out of the presence of the
jury, determine any issue as to voluntariness.” United States v. Davidson, 768 F.2d
1266, 1270 n.1 (11th Cir. 1985).
A two-part inquiry determines the admissibility of a confession or
self-incriminating statement. First, the Court must consider whether the Government
complied with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436" date_filed="1966-06-13" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Miranda v. Arizona">384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Second, if those requirements were met, the Court must consider whether the
confession or self-incriminating statement was voluntary. United States v. Jones, 32
F.3d 1512, 1516 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375" date_filed="1983-11-07" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Jerry Wayne Sims, A/K/A "Silver"">719 F.2d 375,
378 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). The Court makes these inquiries separately
below.
18
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 19 of 27
1. Compliance with Miranda
In Miranda, the Supreme Court noted that, “when an individual is taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant
way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is
jeopardized.” 384 U.S. 436" date_filed="1966-06-13" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Miranda v. Arizona">384 U.S. at 478. Therefore, the Court held that the procedural
safeguard of warning the suspect of his constitutional rights must be instituted to
protect the privilege. Id. at 478-79. These so-called Miranda warnings “are required
before any statement may be admitted into evidence at trial which was elicited from
a person in custody through interrogation.” Endress v. Dugger, 880 F.2d 1244" date_filed="1989-08-21" court="11th Cir." case_name="James R. Endress v. Richard L. Dugger, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida">880 F.2d 1244, 1248
(11th Cir. 1989).
It is undisputed that defendant was in custody at all relevant times and that his
statements were elicited through interrogation. It is further undisputed that defendant
received his Miranda warnings and waived those rights, verbally and in writing.
Thus, the first prong of the Court’s analysis is satisfied, at least with respect to
statements made during transport and at the jail. The sole dispute is whether the
Miranda warnings and waiver form were presented to defendant at the outset of the
interview, as the Government contends, or near the end of the bedroom interview, as
Mr. Baldwin testified.
19
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 20 of 27
Defendant does not deny signing and understanding that form, but contends
that neither the Miranda rights nor the form were presented to him until near the end
of the bedroom interview. However, whether because of honestly mistaken memory
or because a defendant facing felony charges has incentive to fabricate, Mr.
Baldwin’s testimony does not outweigh the testimony at the hearing showing that
Agents Mueller and Gilleland administered Miranda warnings to Mr. Baldwin in his
bedroom at the outset of their interview at approximately 8:40 a.m., as recorded on
the Miranda waiver form that defendant signed. (Govt. Ex. 1.)20 The Court thus
finds SA Mueller’s testimony more credible than the defendant’s.
2. Voluntariness
Determining whether a confession or incriminating statement is voluntary
depends on whether, under all of the surrounding circumstances, the statement was
the product of the accused’s “free and rational” choice. Jones, 32 F.3d at 1516. In
Arizona v. Fulminate, 499 U.S. 279" date_filed="1991-05-20" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Arizona v. Fulminante">499 U.S. 279, 285-88 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the
issue of voluntariness is determined by the totality of the circumstances. In
evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the district court must assess whether law
20
The Government declined to have Agent Gilleland testify. (See Tr. 59, 88.)
The AUSA repeated that the agent’s testimony would mirror SA Mueller’s
testimony. (Id. at 88.)
20
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 21 of 27
enforcement conduct was “causally related” to the confession. Jones, 32 F.3d at
1516-17. The standard applied in the Eleventh Circuit is as follows:
Sufficiently coercive conduct normally involves subjecting the accused
to an exhaustingly long interrogation, the application of physical force
or the threat to do so, or the making of a promise that induces a
confession. Isolated incidents of police deception, and discussions of
realistic penalties for cooperative and non-cooperative defendants, are
normally insufficient to preclude free choice.
Id. at 1517 (quoting United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467" date_filed="1992-06-24" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Leonardo Mendoza-Cecelia, Terry Lee Greenberg, Hector Favio Marin-Hernandez">963 F.2d 1467, 1475 (11th
Cir. 1992)), abrogated on other grounds, Coleman v. Singletary, 30 F.3d 1420" date_filed="1994-09-08" court="11th Cir." case_name="Gerald Anthony Coleman v. Harry K. Singletary, Robert A. Butterworth">30 F.3d 1420 (11th
Cir. 1994).
In this case, the totality of the circumstances shows that Mr. Baldwin’s
statements were made voluntarily. There is no assertion that defendant was subjected
to an unusually long detention or interrogation or that he was physically harmed or
threatened. Defendant argues that his statements were coerced because law
enforcement threatened to charge him with distribution of one million pills if he
failed to give them a “good number.”
However, “a truthful and noncoercive statement of the possible penalties
which an accused faces may be given to the accused without leading to an
involuntary statement.” United States v. Davidson, 768 F.2d 1266" date_filed="1985-08-16" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Delroy Thomas Davidson">768 F.2d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir.
21
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 22 of 27
1985) (citation and internal quotation omitted). SA Mueller did not suggest any
specific penalties to defendant, but informed him that he faced criminal liability for
his involvement in a long-term, wide-ranging conspiracy, and that his liability
potentially encompassed the full scope of the conspiracy. Those statements were
truthful. See United States v. Aguera, 281 F. App’x 893" date_filed="2008-06-16" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Ricardo Aguera">281 F. App’x 893, 895 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (extent of conspirator liability depends on knowledge of nature and scope of
conspiracy, and level of participation in scheme).
Moreover, even if the questioning occurred as defendant recalled, his own
testimony reveals that his statements were voluntary. Defendant testified that he
understood his rights based on hearing them on TV and that he answered questions
without protest. (Tr. 85.) Defendant explained, “I figured it was my only chance to
help myself. I needed to help myself all I could.” (Id.) Thus, under the totality of
the circumstances, the Court must conclude that Mr. Baldwin made a knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent. See Singleton v.
Thigpen, 847 F.2d 668" date_filed="1988-05-27" court="11th Cir." case_name="Cornelius Singleton v. Morris Thigpen, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections">847 F.2d 668, 670 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[a] confession by a defendant will be
deemed voluntary if the defendant makes an independent and informed choice of his
own free will, possessing the capability to do so, his will not being overborne by the
pressures and circumstances swirling around him.”) (citation and internal quotation
22
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 23 of 27
omitted). Therefore, Mr. Baldwin’s Motions to Suppress Statements should be
DENIED.
B. Search of Defendant’s Residence
Defendant contends that the “search of the safe and the wallet went beyond the
scope of any consent [he] could be construed as having given.” (Def.’s Br. 10.) “A
consensual search is manifestly reasonable so long as it remains within the scope of
the consent.” United States v. Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117" date_filed="1992-01-07" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Elsie Martinez">949 F.2d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248" date_filed="1991-05-23" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Florida v. Jimeno">500 U.S. 248, 249 (1991)). “When a defendant gives a general
statement of consent, the scope of the permissible search ‘is constrained by the
bounds of reasonableness: what a police officer could reasonably interpret the
consent to encompass.’” United States v. Telcy, 362 F. App’x 83" date_filed="2010-01-21" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Jacques Hernes Telcy">362 F. App’x 83, 87 (11th Cir.
2010) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298" date_filed="2006-12-20" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Stanley Street">472 F.3d 1298, 1308 (11th Cir.
2006)).
As summarized above, defendant verbally consented to a search of the house
in response to SA Mueller’s query whether there were weapons, cash, or narcotics
in the house.21 In addition, defendant signed a form granting consent to search his
21
Although his testimony did not match SA Mueller’s, defendant did not
testify to any objection he might have made when the agents “said something about
looking around the house or whatever.” (See Tr. 64-65.)
23
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 24 of 27
property and vehicles. (Govt. Ex. 2.) Permission to search an area for narcotics
“may be construed as permission to search any compartment or container within the
specified area where narcotics may be found.” Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117" date_filed="1992-01-07" court="11th Cir." case_name="United States v. Elsie Martinez">949 F.2d at 1119.
There is no evidence as to where the wallet was found, only that it was handed
to SA Mueller by another agent. (Tr. 48-49.) At that time, given defendant’s general
consent to the search for cash and narcotics (either of which might be found in a
wallet), it was reasonable for SA Mueller to believe the consent encompassed the
wallet.
The remaining issue is whether defendant limited his consent when the agents
asked him to open the safe. SA Mueller testified that when he asked defendant to
open the safe, defendant did so without asking whether he was required to and
without asking multiple times whether he had to open the safe. (Tr. 33.) Mr.
Baldwin testified that he acquiesced to opening the safe only after SA Gilleland
reiterated approximately five times that defendant had to open it. (Id. at 70.)
However, defendant did not refuse to open the safe. See, e.g., United States v. Rios,
No. 2:09-cr-52-FtM-29DNF, 2009 WL 4510111, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2009)
(“When the Defendant indicated that he would not consent to a search of the locked
safe, [police officer] stopped searching the room and went to obtain a search
24
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 25 of 27
warrant.”). The Court again finds SA Mueller’s testimony on this point credible.
Thus, no basis exists to suppress the items found in defendant’s wallet or safe.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion for Jackson/Denno Hearing
[216], and his Amended Motion to Suppress Statements and Motion for
Jackson/Denno Hearing and Motion to Suppress Evidence [242], be DENIED.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 17th day of June, 2011.
WALTER E. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 26 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
JOSEPH BALDWIN, NO. 4:10-CR-0032-07-HLM-WEJ
Defendant.
ORDER FOR SERVICE OF
NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Let this Non-Final Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Court’s
Local Criminal Rule 58.1(A)(3)(a), be filed and a copy, together with a copy of this
Order, be served upon counsel for the parties.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party may file written objections, if
any, to the Non-Final Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the
receipt of this Order. Should objections be filed, they shall specify with particularity
the alleged error(s) made (including reference by page number to any transcripts if
applicable) and shall be served upon the opposing party. The party filing objections
will be responsible for obtaining and filing the transcript of any evidentiary hearing
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Case 4:10-cr-00032-HLM-WEJ Document 290 Filed 06/17/11 Page 27 of 27
for review by the District Court. Failure to object to this Non-Final Report and
Recommendation waives a party’s right to review. Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(b)(2).
The Clerk is directed to submit the Non-Final Report and Recommendation
with objections, if any, to the District Court after expiration of the above time period.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2011.
WALTER E. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)