United States v. Mullen , 95 F. App'x 259 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-4013
(D.C. No. 02-CR-53-TC)
DANA HOWARD MULLEN, also (Utah)
known as Stacey Allen Mullen, also
known as Alex R. Johnson,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Dana Howard Mullen was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of
a firearm by a felon and sentenced to 120 months in prison. He now appeals the
denial of his motion to suppress an incriminating statement concerning the
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
presence of a firearm in a fanny pack. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The issue in this case is whether Mr. Mullen’s incriminating statement
about the presence of the firearm in the fanny pack was the product of
interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In reviewing the
denial of a motion to suppress, we take the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government and accept the district court’s factual findings unless they are
clearly erroneous. United States v. Hudson, 210 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.
2000); United States v. Muniz, 1 F.3d 1018, 1021-22 (10th Cir. 1993). The
ultimate determination of whether there was a Miranda violation is a legal issue
we review de novo. United States v. Johnson, 4 F.3d 904, 910 (10th Cir. 1993).
The pertinent facts as found by the district court, see rec. vol. I, doc. 47 at
2-4, are as follows. Two police officers were observing a residence known to be
frequented by drug runners. They intended to conduct a “knock and talk” with the
owner of the residence to determine if either of two individuals, whose cars were
parked outside and for whom outstanding warrants existed, were present. Another
officer waited in the backyard of the residence in case anyone fled through the
back door. As the officers approached the house, Mr. Mullen came out and began
to walk around the side of the house. When he ignored the officers’ requests to
stop and speak with them and then broke into a run towards the other side of the
residence, they followed him and requested the officer in the back of the house to
-2-
stop him. Mr. Mullen continued to run and along the way dropped two bags he
had been carrying. When Mr. Mullen tripped and fell, one of the officers
handcuffed him. Meanwhile another officer picked up the bags Mr. Mullen had
dropped. As that officer walked toward Mr. Mullen, Mr. Mullen announced “The
gym bag is mine; the fanny pack is not.” Id. at 4 (citing hearing transcript at 31).
An officer asked him “Whose fanny pack is it?” Mr. Mullen responded, “I know
whose it is, but I don’t want to tell you, but there’s a gun in it.” Id. (citing
hearing transcript at 36). After verifying the outstanding warrants, the officers
arrested Mr. Mullen. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, when asked about
the ownership of the fanny pack, Mr. Mullen initially said “I guess I owned it. I
had it in my possession,” but later stated that the pack was his but he did not
know what was in it, id. (citing hearing transcript at 40-41).
Two conditions must be met before Miranda warnings are required. The
suspect must be in custody, and the questioning must meet the legal definition of
interrogation. United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10th Cir. 1993).
Under Miranda, the term “interrogation” “refers not only to express questioning,
but also to any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police
should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the
suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). The Fifth Amendment
does not bar the admission of volunteered statements which are freely given.
-3-
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478.
Based upon its findings of fact as outlined above, the district court
determined that although Mr. Mullen was in custody at the time he made the
statement, he was not under interrogation as that term is defined in the context of
Miranda. Particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Mullen did not argue for
suppression of his first statement regarding ownership of the two bags, the district
court found that “Officer Millard’s question - ‘whose fanny pack is it?’ - was not
designed to elicit an incriminating response concerning the Defendant.” Rec. vol.
I, doc. 47 at 8. Mr. Mullen had already disavowed ownership of the fanny pack,
so the question attempting to establish another person’s ownership was not one
the police should have thought reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response. Furthermore, as the district court also noted, the statement was not in
fact a response to the officer’s question. The officer asked only about ownership
of the fanny pack. Mr. Mullen stated his refusal to provide that information and
volunteered instead the information concerning the contents of the fanny pack.
The district court correctly cited our opinion in United States v. Gay, 774
F.2d 368, 379-80 (10th Cir. 1985), where we held it would be unreasonable to
hold officers accountable for unforeseen answers to straightforward questions.
See also Innis, 446 U.S. at 301-02 (“since the police surely cannot be held
accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition
-4-
of interrogation can extend to words or actions on the part of police officers that
they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response”) (emphasis in original). We find no error in the district court’s
determination that the statement was not the product of interrogation, and we
agree with the court’s ultimate legal conclusion that there was no Miranda
violation.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-5-