Page 29 - TPA Journal May June 2022

Michalik’s version of the events differs. He asserts suspect is in custody “when placed under formal
that the agents gave him the ultimatum that either arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect’s
he lead them to the office and retrieve the laptop, or position would have understood the situation to
they would take him to jail. Michalik also contends constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of
the agents told him that they already had a warrant the degree which the law associates with formal
to search his laptop. Michalik doesn’t contest that arrest.”
he signed the consent form but avers that the agents
failed to tell him what he was signing or give him A suspect’s custodial status “is an objective inquiry
a choice whether to do so. . . . that depends on the totality of the
Michalik moved to suppress the evidence from his circumstances.” Five factors are relevant: “(1) the
interview with the agents and the evidence from his length of the questioning; (2) the location of the
laptop; the district court denied the motion. questioning; (3) the accusatory, or non-accusatory,
The jury convicted Michalik of possessing child nature of the questioning; (4) the amount of
pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). restraint on the individual’s physical movement;
He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, and (5) statements made by officers regarding the
several admissions of evidence at trial, and the individual’s freedom to move or leave.”
sufficiency of the evidence in support of his
conviction. Regarding the first factor, the length of questioning,
the HSI agents testified that Michalik’s interview
Michalik appeals the denial of his motion to lasted from forty-five minutes to just over an hour.
suppress the evidence of his statements to HSI That’s roughly consistent with Michalik’s
agents and the evidence from his laptop. He contention that the interview lasted “at least an
contends that the government’s failure to recite his hour.” Although an interview length of one hour
Miranda rights necessitates the exclusion of his “weighs in favor of finding that it was custodial,”
statements to the agents, and he avers that his an hour-long interview, alone, doesn’t render the
consent to search his office laptop was not questioning custodial. Indeed, “[w]e have
voluntary. previously rejected the broad proposition that an
hour-long interview constitutes a per se custodial
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we interrogation.”
review findings of fact for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo. We view “the evidence in the The second factor—the location of the
light most favorable to the party that prevailed in questioning—suggests that the interview was not
the district court,” and we will uphold the district custodial. Michalik sat in the passenger-side front
court’s ruling on the motion “if there is any seat of a police car on the street near his house. As
reasonable view of the evidence in Wright, the interview “took place close to the
to support it.” “Our review is particularly [suspect’s] home, in a car subject to public
deferential where denial of the suppression motion scrutiny.”
is based on live oral testimony because the judge
had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the The third factor—whether the questioning was
witnesses.” accusatory—indicates that the interview was not
custodial. The district court found HSI agents
In general, “a suspect’s incriminating statements DePaola and Juarez credible when they testified
during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible that the conversation was “cordial” and Michalik
if he has not first received Miranda warnings.” A was “cooperative.” As the district court noted,

May - June 2022 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 25