UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. QUINTIN ANTONIO BELL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Niemeyer, August 28, 2018,
Miranda – A suspect detained next to his wife during a search warrant was not “interrogated” when an officer executing the search warrant directed a question to the suspect’s wife regarding whether there were any weapons in the house and the defendant replied before she could answer.

(Dissent – Wynn – questioning the suspect’s wife while she’s next to him should be considered the equivalent of directly questioning him)

Facts:
In 2014, ATF officers executed a no-knock search warrant in PG county for narcotics and firearms.
Quintin Bell was the target of the warrant, which was obtained after a confidential informant provided information that Bell was storing large quantities of heroin at the location while armed with a firearm.
Officers executing the warrant made a forced entry and found Bell in the basement. Bell was placed in handcuffs and transported to the living room. His wife, Stacy Bell, was also handcuffed and placed in the living room.
Knowing that Stacy was the owner of the house, one of the ATF agents informed Stacy that they had a search warrant for the location. He then asked her, in the interest of officer safety, “if there were any weapons in the house that would hurt an officer.” According to the Agent, in posing this question to Stacy, he walked to “within a couple feet” of her and “directed his question to her directly, looking at her in the eye.”
Before Stacy could respond, however, Bell interjected, stating that “there was a gun under the couch” next to them and that “a friend had given him the gun after somebody had tried to break into the house and rob him.”
Officers then searched under the living-room couch and recovered a Mini-14 Ruger semiautomatic rifle. Also found in the house was ammunition for the rifle, cash, heroin, and packaging material.
Prior to trial, Bell moved to suppress his statement admitting that there was a gun under the couch, claiming that it was a violation of Miranda. Bell also moved to force the government to disclose the identity of the informant, claiming that it was necessary to show that the informant was mistaken and that the rifle actually belonged to another person.
The trial court denied both requests and Bell appealed.

Held: The Fourth Circuit held that Bell’s statement was not the result of interrogation, and therefore Miranda was not required. Moreover, Bell failed to meet the “heavy burden” to demonstrate that he needed the identity of the informant.

Miranda – A suspect who is under arrest (or the equivalent) must be read his Miranda rights and voluntarily waive them prior to interrogation.

Miranda – Custody – A suspect is “under arrest” for purposes of Miranda if a reasonable person in his place would think that he was under arrest

Note: A reasonable person is more likely to think that he is under arrest if he:
– is being accused of a crime
– was transported to the interrogation against his will
– has been isolated
– has his movement restricted (handcuffs being the most obvious, but also things like closed/locked doors)
– is the subject of a lengthy interrogation
– is escorted any time he leaves the interrogation
– is not told that he is free to leave

Miranda – Interrogation – Miranda is required whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning about a crime or “any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”

Example from the Court of Appeals: Functional equivalent of interrogation occurred when, before being given his Miranda warning, the defendant was placed in an interrogation room, shown evidence recovered from the crime scene and advised that these items would be tested for fingerprints.

Example from the Supreme Court: Not the functional equivalent of interrogation where, without Miranda, two officers were transporting a robbery suspect while discussing the need to find the shotgun used because there was a school for handicapped children located nearby and one of the children could find the gun and hurt himself. The suspect interrupted their conversation, stating that he knew where the gun was located, and then led the officers to it. Because the Supreme Court found that the officers would not have known that their remarks were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” on the part of the suspect, this was not the equivalent of interrogation.

Examples from the Case: Other things that the courts have suggested are “interrogation equivalent to express questioning” include: using a fake/coached witness to identify the suspect and accusing the suspect of a fictitious crime to get him to admit to the real crime.

From the Case: “In this case… it is apparent that Bell was subjected to neither express questioning nor its functional equivalent. Agent Oliver focused directly on Stacy as the owner of the house, looked her in the eye, and asked her a single question relating to officer safety… The question was not posed to Bell and did not seek a response from him, nor was there any evidence that it was intended to. Moreover, nothing in the formulation of the question would suggest that it invited a response from anyone other than Stacy.”

Identifying Informants – The identify of an informant may be protected by the government if the interest in protecting the identity of the informant outweighs the defendant’s right to prepare his defense.

Identifying Informants – Whether the informant’s identity needs to be disclosed depends on the particular circumstances of each case, “taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”

Identifying Informants – Where the informant is a “mere tipster,” or was used only to obtain a search warrant, it is less likely that the informant’s identity will need to be disclosed.

Identifying Informants – If the informant was an active participant in the events leading to the suspect’s arrest, it is more likely that the informant’s identity will need to be disclosed. For example: where the informant sets up a controlled purchase resulting in a criminal charge.

From the Case: Because the informant here only provided information for the search warrant, the informant “apparently had no role in Bell’s crimes,” and the criminal charges “arose from Bell’s possession of narcotics and a firearm at times when the informant was not present,” it was appropriate for the court to deny Bell’s request to force the informant’s identity.