Page 35 - TPA Journal March April 2024

by not excluding any inculpatory statements made objection from Adcock or Donnet, Rider opened
to the officers. Specifically, Rider claims his state- the car door and asked officers to be careful about
ments were involuntary and that the officers searching his truck so as not to scratch the hitch.
manipulated him into believing he could reunite Under these facts, we see no error in the district
with his family if he cooperated. He also contends court’s determination that a reasonable person
Donnet violated his due process rights by refer- “would not have understood the situation to con-
encing their shared Christian faith, which exploit- stitute a restraint on freedom of movement equiv-
ed the “human need to disclose” one’s “flawed alent to formal arrest.” Therefore, Rider was not
acts or thoughts.” “in custody” and the district court correctly deter-
mined there was no violation of his Fifth
“Where a district court has denied a motion to sup- Amendment rights.
press evidence, we review its factual findings for
clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Nor was Rider subject to the type of coercion pro-
Factual findings are clearly erroneous only if a hibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. As set out
review of the record leaves this Court with a defi- in Chavez v. Martinez, the Fourteenth Amendment
nite and firm conviction that a mistake has been protects a suspect’s right to be free from coercive
committed. This Court must “uphold the district questioning and prohibits “[c]onvictions based on
court’s ruling if there is any reasonable view of the evidence obtained by methods that are ‘so brutal
evidence to support it.” and so offensive to human dignity’ that they
‘shoc[k] the conscience’ [and] violate the Due
Thus, the threshold question is whether a suspect Process Clause.” To violate the Due Process
was “in custody,” an issue that Rider did not Clause, law enforcement must use a “substantial
address in his appellate briefing. Even if Rider did element of coercive” conduct that is “intended to
not abandon this argument on appeal by failing to injure in some way unjustifiable by any govern-
contest this point, his arguments regarding the ment interest.” This demanding standard applies
waiver of his rights are relevant only if he was in to “police torture or other abuse.”
custody. Because we agree with the district court
that Rider was not “in custody” when he made the Although Rider was interviewed in a police vehi-
inculpatory statements, we do reach the waiver of cle, the car was not locked and was kept at a com-
those rights. fortable temperature. His counsel admitted he
could exit the vehicle at any time. Rider’s health
A suspect is “in custody” when they are “‘placed and safety was not threatened, nor was he verbal-
under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in ly threatened. To the contrary, the record indicates
the suspect’s position would have understood the the interaction remained “conversational.” Even if
situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of Rider is correct that Donnet “manipulated
movement of the degree which the law associates [Rider’s] faith to suggest forgiveness from God if
with formal arrest.’” In Rider’s case, “there is no [Rider] confessed,” the Supreme Court has held
indication that the questioning took place in a con- that appeals to the conscience do not constitute
text where respondent’s freedom to depart was coercive police tactics. Simply put, Rider can
restricted in any way.” Although the conversation point to no behavior that violates the “decencies of
lasted for over one and a half hours, Rider was civilized conduct” and meets Chavez’s high stan-
interviewed in an unlocked police car and his dard. The district court did not err in denying
counsel admitted at oral argument that Rider was Rider’s motion to suppress on this basis.
free to leave the police vehicle. Furthermore,
Rider was made comfortable and kept “in view of (omitted: discussion of other issues.)
his family members” throughout the conversation.
The magistrate judge described the interaction as In conclusion, the district court did not err by
“conversational” and, at one point and without denying Rider’s motion to suppress nor by exclud-
ing Dr. Compton’s testimony. We conclude that

March/April 2024 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 31