United States v. Feliz

Facts

Police executed a search warrant and D, an eighteen-year-old, with no criminal record, was not present. D's stepfather Luis Rivera, the owner of the house, identified the bedroom in which D had last stayed. The officers found a loaded pistol, more ammunition, eighty-seven capsules of cocaine base, and $1,384 in cash in the bedroom. They arrested Rivera, the stepfather, for possessing a firearm without a license. They then transported Rivera and the rest of the family, including the two-year-old infant, to the police station. As the officers got into their patrol cars, D appeared and approached the house. D was arrested and at the station was again given Miranda warnings, both verbally and in writing. D signed that he understood his Miranda rights, and then, around 7:30 a.m., the police say he wrote a confession on the reverse side of the Miranda form. When taken for testing at the ATF D began crying and confessing again. Agent López immediately gave D a verbal Miranda warning, told D to stop, and had Feliz read and sign a written Miranda form. D then again wrote a confession on the reverse side of the Miranda form, around 2:30 p.m. This second, more detailed confession, explained that Feliz obtained the firearm for protection while selling drugs and that he began selling drugs to provide for his ten-month-old son while Feliz was unemployed. D and his mother have a different story. After the search of the house, the police officers told d's mother to call D. D missed her call, but soon returned it. One of the officers told D to turn himself in, because 'all of that' was his. The officer also threatened D that, if he refused to turn himself in, his siblings would be sent to the custody of the Department of Family Affairs. D's mother was audible to Feliz, crying in the background. D turned himself into the police at the station, where officers walked him past his family and into an interrogation room. One of the officers told him that if he failed to confess, his mother, a Dominican national, would be deported. Agent Vélez then dictated the first confession to D. After D wrote out the confession, Agent Vélez told D to sign the Miranda form, presenting it as an afterthought and without giving D the opportunity to read it. In the ATF office's interrogation room, Agent López threatened D that if he did not confess again, his mother would be deported and sisters removed to the custody of the state. Agent López dictated the second, more detailed confession, and D signed it and the second Miranda waiver. D was indicted and moved to suppress the Miranda warnings and waiver form, his statements written on the back of those forms, and the evidence seized from his home, which he argued had been planted by the police. At the suppression hearing Agent Vélez and Agent López testified, and d, Rivera, and D’s mother, Hortencia, testified for D. D's sister also testified for the defense, saying that she saw the police officers bring a black bag into the house on the day of the search. The magistrate found all of the testimony for D credible. The magistrate judge credited that testimony over the testimony of the police officers. The magistrate judge recommended that both confessions be suppressed.  The judge 'doubted whether D ever possessed any of the contraband.' D had not lived in the house for months prior to the search, that his younger sister lived in the room at the time of the search, that the agents 'found' the gun in a laundry hamper minutes after entering the home and outside the presence of any of Ds family, and that the agents took no photographs of the crime scene and did not test the gun or drugs for fingerprints. D's mother and sister each testified that they saw the police bring a duffle bag into the house. In a de novo hearing, the district court sustained a hearsay objection and cut off the line of questioning about the phone calls. The court excluded Hortencia's account of the police officer's dealings with D at the police station as hearsay. The judge denied the suppression motions. It stated that 'no evidence was submitted that D was coerced by the state police.' D was convicted on all counts. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.