United States v. Kristi Little Wolf , 472 F. App'x 548 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                MAR 21 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 11-30129
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00070-RFC-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KRISTI MAE LITTLE WOLF,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 6, 2012**
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant Kristi Mae Little Wolf appeals the denial of her motion to
    suppress statements made to police during an in-home interview about her
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    participation in a scheme to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Little Wolf argues that because the investigating officers did not inform her
    of her right against self-incrimination, “the prosecution may not use statements . . .
    stemming from” that questioning because she was in custody at the time. See
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 444 (1966). Little Wolf was “in custody” when
    interviewed in her home if, based on “the totality of the circumstances . . . a
    reasonable person in [her] position . . . would not have felt free to terminate the
    interrogation” and leave. United States v. Craighead, 
    539 F.3d 1073
    , 1082–83 (9th
    Cir. 2008). In evaluating such claims, courts examine:
    (1) the number of law enforcement personnel and whether they were
    armed; (2) whether the suspect was at any point restrained, either by
    physical force or by threats; (3) whether the suspect was isolated from
    others; and (4) whether the suspect was informed that he was free to
    leave or terminate the interview, and the context in which any such
    statements were made.
    
    Id. at 1084
    .
    None of these factors weigh in favor of the conclusion that Little Wolf was
    in custody when questioned by the investigating officers. As the district court
    found after conducting a hearing, three law enforcement officers entered Little
    Wolf’s home dressed in plain clothes. None of the officers openly carried
    weapons. The tone of the interview was generally cordial and Little Wolf was
    cooperative. Little Wolf was not handcuffed or otherwise restrained, and the
    record shows that she could move freely about her home. The officers permitted
    Little Wolf to keep her baby with her during their questioning, and the record does
    not suggest that the officers attempted to isolate Little Wolf from the outside
    world. In fact, one of the investigating officers told Little Wolf that she was not
    going to be arrested and she was free to leave. While “[t]he mere recitation of the
    statement that the suspect is free to leave or terminate the interview . . . does not
    render an interrogation non-custodial per se,” Craighead, 
    539 F.3d at 1088
    , and
    the court must consider the delivery of these statements within the context of the
    interview as a whole, 
    id.,
     the record here shows that Little Wolf was not questioned
    while in custody.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-15435

Citation Numbers: 472 F. App'x 548

Filed Date: 3/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023