U.S. v.

BROWN
April 2, 1993 | Wollman, Ciruit Judge | Appeal | Miranda rights (topic where the case falls under in our syllabus)
PETITIONER: United States of America, Appellee
RESPONDENT: Jesse Ausbin Brown, Appellant
SUMMARY: Jesse Brown was convicted of 2 counts of sexual acts with a minor
(for touching young girls between their legs while in a vehicle) and was sentenced
to 235 months in prison. He appealed his conviction on the ground that the district
court recognized a self-damning statement made by him which he insists should
not admissible at trial because he was not under the custody of police when he
made the statement. The Court found that Brown had not been in custody during
his questioning based on the first three of the six indicia of custody from United
States v. Griffin (See Ratio.).
DOCTRINE: Miranda warnings must be given prior to questioning whenever an
individual is 'in custody.' An individual is 'in custody' when he has been formally
arrested or his freedom of movement has been restrained to a degree associate.
(See Ratio).
FACTS:
1. Brown, 38 year-old Caucasian male transient, while in
South Dakota, went to a softball game at Wakpamni Lake. He
returned to where was staying at Pine Ridge in a car in the
backseat with two eight-year-old girls sitting on his lap, one
on each knee.
2. The two girls and their mother complained to Pine Ridge
Police, accusing Brown of touching the two girls between
their legs during the drive.
3.Rick Esselbach, FBI Special Agent, and Barney White Face,
Criminal Investigator for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, approached
Brown who was staying in Doris Poor Bear residence.
4. Esselbach informed Brown that they were investigating the
allegations against him, advised him he was not under arrest,
but that they wanted to get his side of the story if he wanted.
Brown said he wanted to talk to the officers so they could get
to the bottom of the matter.
5. The 2 officers followed Brown into his bedroom. Esselbach
told Brown of the alleged sexual abuse. Brown initially denied
it.
6. Esselbach asked Brown if he could have accidentally
touched the girls. Brown answered that he may have
unintentionally touched the vagina of one of the girls while
making himself comfortable in the cramped car, but then
eventually admitted to having intentionally touched one girl's
vagina. He confessed rubbing the girl's vagina area and had
slipped one of his fingers inside it.
7. Brown was indicted on 2 counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
Count 1 charged him with aggravated sexual abuse of a person
who had not attained the age of 12 years; Count II charged
him with abusive sexual contact with a person who had not
attained the age of 12 years.
8. Brown made a motion to suppress his inculpatory statement
on the ground that he had not been given the Miranda
warnings prior to making the statement. Motion was denied;
Brown renewed objectiondenied; now Brown appealed.
Brown argues that the court was wrong in making his
inculpatory statement admissible at trial.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON Brown was in custody while he made the statement
making the statement admissible NO
RULING: Conviction by District Court is AFFIRMED and
sentence is VACATED, as case is remanded to the district
court for resentencing..
RATIO:
1. No, he was not in custody, and therefore the statement is
inadmissible. According to the six indicia of custody (United
States v. Griffin) as according to the circumstances of the
case, the Court concluded that the district court did not
make a mistake in holding that Brown had not been in
custody during his questioning.
(i) Whether the suspect was informed at the time of
questioning that questioning was voluntary, that the suspect
was free to leave or request the officers to do so, or that the
suspect was not considered under arrest;
-Brown was informed by Esselbach that he was not
under arrest and that the questioning was voluntary.
(ii) Whether the suspect possessed unrestrained freedom og
movement during questioning;
-Brown was free to move around the entire interview,
he was not handcuffed nor physically restrained; the bedroom
door was open and unblocked and Brown could have ended
the interview if he left the room at anytime.
(iii) Whether the suspects initiated contact with authorities or
voluntarily acquiesced to official request to respond to
questions;
-Brown voluntarily initiated contact with the officers.
He was inside the Poor Bear residence when he presented
himself to the officers who were looking for him. He
voluntarily acquiesced to the interview.
(iv) Whether strong arm tactics or deceptive strategems were
employed during questioning;
-The officers did not employ strong-arm tactics. They
did not yet at Brown, nor use any strategy like the good-cop,
bad-cop routine. One officer remained silent the entire time

and only asked personal data questions in the end.

(v) Whether the atmosphere of the questioning was police
dominated.
-The atmosphere of the questioning was not police
dominated. The interview only lasted 40 minutes, took place
in a residence where Brown felt comfortable, as opposed to a
jail which is a police-operated facility. The officers were also
not in control as they did not instruct any person to do
anything. They merely followed Brown into the bedroom to
talk.
(vi) Whether the suspect was placed under arrest at the
termination of the questioning.
-Brown was not arrested at the end of the interview.
He wasn't even instructed to stay at Pine Ridge. He was only
informed that the U.S. District Attorney's office would decide
whether to prosceute and that he should let the officers know

where he was going if he left the area.

Since all of the mitigating indicia (first three) and
none of the aggravating (last three) indicia of custody were
present when Brown was interviewed, Court concludes that
the district court did not err in holding that Brown had not
been in custody during his questioning.