U.S. v. Leal

In prosecution on charge of attempting to entice minor to engage in sexual activity, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress his confession that he made during interview with law enforcement agents, even though defendant argued that agents had failed to provide Miranda warnings prior to instant interview. While Dist. Ct. concluded that defendant was “in custody” at time of interview that was based, in part, on defendant’s subjective view that he could not leave location of interview, Ct. of Appeals found that defendant was not in custody at time of interview, and thus confession should not have been suppressed, where: (1) none of agents had confronted defendant with evidence of his guilt until after he had confessed to facts supporting charged offense; (2) defendant was stopped on public street and volunteered to give interview at “sting house” located two blocks away; (3) sting house had unlocked door that allowed defendant to leave; (4) defendant never asked agent to stop interview, which otherwise took less than 20 minutes to complete; (5) agents told defendant prior to interview that he was not under arrest; and (6) agents did not use physical restraints, brandish their weapons or flaunt threatening presence. Fact that defendant tendered car keys to agents at start of interview did not require different result.