U.S. v. Borostowski

In prosecution on possession, receipt and distribution of child pornography charges, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statement taken at his home while other officers were executing search warrant, after finding that defendant was not “in custody” at time of police questioning. Reasonable person would not have felt free to leave during instant questioning, where: (1) defendant was handcuffed for 25 minutes prior to instant questioning; (2) questioning occurred behind closed door in small room in defendant’s home, with one officer blocking closed door; and (3) defendant was not released at end of 3-hour encounter and was driven to offsite area, where polygraph test was taken. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of external hard-drive found in car of defendant’s mother, even though mother’s car was not mentioned in search warrant, since mother’s car was on premises at time of search, and mother gave consent to search her car.