Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-2178 U.S. v. Swanson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 24, 2011//

10-2178 U.S. v. Swanson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 24, 2011//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure

Miranda warnings

Where police interrogated a suspect for 45 minutes without reading him his Miranda rights, his incriminating statements should have been suppressed.

“When the officers arrested Swanson they presented an arrest warrant stating that he was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. They simultaneously gave him a court order that directed him to turn over any firearms to the police. Sergeant Ford asked him if he had any firearms ‘that he wanted to turn over in compliance with the court order.’ Later, Sergeant Ford directed him a second time to reveal whether he had any guns in his possession: ‘Again, I said—I explained that I didn’t want him to be in violation of the court order, that I wanted to make sure that he was in compliance, asked him if there were any other guns or even look-alike guns that he wanted us to secure.’ The third time Sergeant Ford urged Swanson to comply with the order he ‘asked him one more time, just to be sure, to give him a moment to think.’ Under these circumstances, we find that ‘a reasonable objective observer’ would believe that Sergeant Ford’s statements to Swanson were, at least, ‘reasonably likely’ to elicit the incriminating response from Swanson that he possessed firearms. See Abdulla, 294 F.3d at 834. Swanson was therefore under interrogation. Even though Swanson did not disclose the sawed-off shotgun while he was at his house, Sergeant Ford testified that upon his walking into the interrogation room ‘Mr. Swanson immediately informed me that he wanted to . . . comply with the court order.’ This disclosure to Sergeant Ford came at most forty-five minutes after Swanson was initially presented with the court order and shortly after Sergeant Ford asked him three times to comply with the court order. The compulsory nature of the court order combined with Sergeant Ford’s interrogation created a cloud of coercion that was raised at Swanson’s home and carried to the police station, ultimately leading Swanson to ‘immediately . . . comply with the court order’ and incriminate himself as soon as he was again brought together with his interrogator.”

Reversed and Remanded.

10-2178 U.S. v. Swanson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kapala, J., Williams, 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