Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-CR-148 U.S. v. Lewis

By: dmc-admin//February 22, 2010//

09-CR-148 U.S. v. Lewis

By: dmc-admin//February 22, 2010//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Miranda warnings; routine booking exception

Where the real motive for a traffic stop was a narcotics investigation, Miranda warnings were required before police asked the suspect where he lived.

"At the time of the questioning the police knew (or reasonably should have known) that defendant's occupancy of the residence at 3823 North 4th Street was a significant issue in the case. The police had already obtained a warrant for the premises based on information that defendant possessed drugs and firearms there. An admission by defendant that he lived there could constitute significant evidence that he controlled the premises and possessed the contraband the officers hoped to find. See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1098-99 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding interrogation where the police inquired as to ownership of a bag they intended to search, and attempted to link the defendant to a motel at which they had conducted surveillance)."

"Nor was this a routine booking encounter. Booking is essentially a clerical procedure, typically occurring soon after the suspect arrives at the police station. Mata-Abundiz, 717 F.2d at 1280. Here, the lead investigating officer questioned defendant, following a 'pretext' traffic stop, asking questions designed to link defendant to the premises about to be searched. This was not a situation where the questions were designed to obtain biographical information; the police already knew who they had stopped, and they had information about where defendant lived and who he lived with. It is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of asking defendant about his residence was to obtain an incriminating response. See generally Plantillas v. Cate, No. CV 08-1194, 2009 WL 890656, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009) (contrasting preliminary
investigative inquiries designed to obtain identifying information to confirm or dispel the suspicion of criminal conduct, which are outside the scope of Miranda, with comments that go beyond preliminary identification inquiries and are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, which are within the scope of Miranda). Indeed, after the initial colloquy, Gajevic admitted to defendant that the traffic stop was essentially a ruse, that the officers were actually after defendant for drug and firearm offenses, and that they had a warrant for 3823 North 4th Street."

09-CR-148 U.S. v. Lewis

E.D.Wis., Adelman, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests