United States v. Camacho
674 F. Supp. 118, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10594, 1987 WL 4407 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes when, under the totality of the circumstances, police actions would lead a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave, even if not formally arrested. Additionally, under the plain view doctrine, the discovery of significant evidence of criminal activity like drug paraphernalia establishes probable cause to seize other nearby items, such as generic pill bottles, that are likely contraband.
Facts:
- A film processing company, Seattle Film Works, received a roll of film containing photographs of two partially undressed young boys and notified U.S. Postal Inspectors.
- Inspectors developed the photos, confirmed they depicted child sexual exploitation, and arranged a 'controlled delivery' to the New York address from which the film originated.
- Inspector John McDermott, disguised as a mail carrier, went to an apartment and asked for 'Mr. T. Nash'. Thomas Camacho identified himself as T. Nash and accepted the package of photographs.
- McDermott returned shortly after with other inspectors and a search warrant authorizing a search for evidence related to the sexual exploitation of children.
- After entering the apartment, McDermott directed Camacho to sit in the living room, instructed him not to make sudden movements, and told him this was 'for your safety and our safety'.
- Inspectors then followed Camacho everywhere he went in the apartment, including to the bathroom, where they required him to leave the door open while being observed.
- McDermott read Camacho his Miranda rights from a form, but Camacho refused to sign the section acknowledging his rights or the section waiving them.
- During the search for pornography-related evidence, inspectors discovered illegal drugs, a triple beam scale, a narcotics price list, and various pill bottles in generic containers.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Camacho was charged in federal court based on evidence seized during a search of his apartment.
- Camacho filed a pretrial motion in the United States District Court to suppress statements he made to postal inspectors and physical evidence, including drugs, seized during the search.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion on September 21, 1987.
- After receiving further submissions from the parties, the court heard final arguments on October 19, 1987, at which point the motion was submitted for decision.
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 directing a suspect to remain seated, restricting their movement, and constantly monitoring them within their own home during the execution of a search warrant constitute 'custody' for Miranda purposes? And, is the criminal nature of generic pill bottles 'immediately apparent' under the plain view doctrine when they are discovered in proximity to other clear evidence of drug trafficking?
Opinions:
Majority - Sweet, District Judge
Yes, to both questions. Restricting a suspect's freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest constitutes custody for Miranda purposes, and the discovery of significant drug paraphernalia creates probable cause to believe nearby containers hold contraband, making their criminal nature 'immediately apparent'. The court reasoned that while Camacho was not in custody when the inspectors first entered, the situation changed when his movement was severely restricted. Being told to stay seated for his 'own safety,' being followed to the bathroom, and not being told he was free to leave would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not free to go. This triggered the need for Miranda warnings. Although Camacho refused to sign the waiver form, his subsequent answering of questions constituted a knowing and voluntary waiver, making his statements admissible. Regarding the drugs, the court applied the plain view doctrine. The inspectors were lawfully on the premises, and the discovery was inadvertent. The key element was whether the criminal nature of the pill bottles was 'immediately apparent.' The court held that, as a matter of law, the discovery of other clear evidence of drug trafficking (a scale, price list, cocaine, etc.) established probable cause to believe that any pills in the apartment were likely illegal substances, justifying their seizure.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that 'custody' for Miranda purposes is determined by a functional test based on a reasonable person's perception of their freedom of movement, not just a formal arrest. It establishes that even within a person's home, police restrictions on movement can create a custodial environment requiring Miranda warnings. The decision also reinforces a broad interpretation of the 'immediately apparent' prong of the plain view doctrine, allowing context and surrounding evidence to establish the probable cause necessary to seize otherwise innocuous items. This precedent gives law enforcement greater latitude to seize potential evidence discovered during a lawful search when there is a strong contextual basis for believing it is contraband.
