Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 06-4464
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-0046-F)
Submitted:
January 9, 2007
Decided:
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joey Tremaine Smith entered a conditional guilty plea to one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A. 922(g)(1) & 924 (West 2000).
partial
denial
of
his
motion
to
suppress
that
he
I.
It is undisputed that on August 8, 2003, officers from the
Wilmington, North Carolina Police Department obtained warrants to
search Smiths residence and vehicle, and decided to execute the
vehicle search warrant when they initiated a traffic stop of the
vehicle. The officers initiated the stop because Smith was driving
with a suspended or revoked license and the car had a burned-out
tail light.
for the traffic violation, Smith was not advised of his Miranda
rights.
least
seven
police
officers
escorted
Smith
to
the
Eubanks,
along
with
Detective
Cully
and
two
other
Detective
officers,
Detective Cully
(J.A. at 64.)*
were two firearms in the bedroom and also apparently implied that
the firearms belonged to her. Detective Eubanks asked where in the
bedroom the guns were located, and she replied that one was in the
pocket of a coat hanging in the closet and one was on a shelf in
the closet. Detective Eubanks then proceeded to the bedroom, where
he located the two firearms in the closet.
Officers photographed
On
would
have
provided
the
same
motivation
for
the
(Appellees Br. at
11-12.)
It is undisputed that after Smith claimed ownership of the
guns, Sergeant Pettus informed Detective Eubanks that Smith had
asserted responsibility for the guns. Detective Eubanks confronted
Smith and Pearson with their inconsistent statements, stating that
someone was lying about ownership of the guns.
Pearson responded
that she was trying to protect Smith, and Detective Eubanks asked
Smith, Youre going to let her go to jail for you?
109-10.)
(J.A. at 66,
by Detective Eubanks,
(J.A. at 67.)
After conducting a
sentenced him to 63 months imprisonment to be followed by a threeyear term of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $3,160
fine.
II.
Miranda prohibits the prosecution from using statements . .
. stemming from custodial interrogation of [a] defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure
the [Fifth Amendment] privilege against self-incrimination.
U.S. at 444.
384
the time he made the challenged statement, and the Government does
not dispute that finding.
defined
interrogation
as
express
questioning
or
its
Id. at 300-01.
the
product
of
interrogation.
Id.
at
300
(Any
We disagree.
Smiths statement
the
exchange
between
Pearson
and
the
We conclude
officers
did
not
838 F.2d 711, 718 (3d Cir. 1988) (concluding that, even if it would
be reasonable to expect a suspect in custody during a search of his
home to make a protest of some kind upon hearing an officer
suggest that, because both mens and womens clothing was found in
the room in which drugs were discovered, it might be necessary to
secure an arrest warrant for the suspects daughter, it would not
be
reasonable
to
expect
an
inculpatory
response
from
[the
district court that the statement Smith seeks to suppress was not
made in response to interrogation or its functional equivalent.
III.
In sum, we conclude that the district court did not err in
partially denying Smiths motion to suppress inculpatory statements
he made during the search of his house.
judgment of the district court.