Carl Calvin Westover v. United States
1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6264, 342 F.2d 684 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession made to federal agents by a suspect lawfully in state custody for state offenses is admissible in federal court, provided there is no improper 'working arrangement' between state and federal authorities designed to circumvent the suspect's rights, such as holding the suspect in illegal detention for the purpose of federal interrogation.
Facts:
- On February 4, 1963, the appellant robbed a federally insured savings and loan association in Sacramento, California.
- On March 14, 1963, the appellant robbed a federally insured bank in Sacramento.
- On March 20, 1963, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Kansas City police arrested the appellant in Missouri on charges of local robberies and on a California felony warrant.
- On March 21, 1963, at approximately 11:30 a.m., while the appellant was in custody at the Kansas City jail, three FBI agents began to interview him about the Sacramento robberies.
- The FBI agents advised the appellant that he did not have to make a statement, that any statement could be used against him, and that he had the right to consult an attorney.
- During a two-and-a-half-hour interview, the appellant provided detailed, signed, written confessions to both Sacramento robberies.
- The appellant also identified a gun found by Kansas City police as the weapon he used in the robberies.
- The following day, March 22, the appellant voluntarily initiated contact with the FBI agents to correct minor details in his statements regarding his transportation to the crime scenes.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was indicted by a federal grand jury in California on two counts of robbery of federally insured financial institutions.
- At trial in the U.S. District Court (trial court), the appellant's signed confessions were offered and received into evidence.
- The jury convicted the appellant on both counts.
- The appellant appealed the convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule, which bars confessions obtained during an unnecessary delay in bringing a suspect before a federal magistrate, apply to a confession given to federal agents by a defendant who is lawfully in state custody for state crimes, where there is no evidence of an abusive 'working arrangement' between the state and federal authorities?
Opinions:
Majority - Madden, J.
No. The McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule does not apply to a confession given to federal agents while a suspect is in lawful state custody, absent an abusive working arrangement between state and federal officers. The precedents requiring prompt presentment before a federal magistrate are inapplicable because the appellant was not arrested by federal officers and was not in federal custody when he confessed. The court distinguished this case from Anderson v. United States, where an unlawful 'working arrangement' existed; here, there was no evidence of abuses, as the state detention was lawful under Missouri law at the time of the interview, and the interview itself was not coercive. The subsequent eleven-day detention by Missouri authorities did not retroactively invalidate the lawfully obtained confession.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundaries of the McNabb-Mallory rule, establishing that its protections are not triggered when a suspect is in lawful state custody. It reinforces that routine cooperation between state and federal law enforcement is permissible and does not, by itself, taint a confession. The ruling sets a standard where a 'working arrangement' only becomes constitutionally problematic if it is a collusive scheme to circumvent a defendant's rights, such as using state custody to hold a suspect illegally for the primary purpose of a federal interrogation. This preserves the ability of federal agents to investigate crimes by interviewing suspects held on separate state charges.
