United States v. Delbert Mobley
142 A.L.R. Fed. 733, 40 F.3d 688, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33131 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'public safety' exception to the Miranda rule, which permits questioning a suspect about weapons before Miranda warnings are given, also applies after a suspect has invoked their right to counsel under Edwards v. Arizona, but only when there is an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from an immediate danger associated with a weapon.
Facts:
- FBI special agents arrived at Delbert Mobley’s apartment with arrest and search warrants related to a crack cocaine distribution ring.
- Mobley answered the door naked and was immediately secured by one of the eight agents present.
- The other agents conducted a security sweep of the apartment and determined that Mobley was the only person present.
- After getting dressed, Mobley was read his Miranda rights.
- Mobley acknowledged his rights and stated that he wished to speak to a lawyer.
- Following Mobley's request for counsel, an FBI agent asked him if there were any weapons in the apartment that could be a danger to the agents who would be conducting the search.
- In response to the agent's question, Mobley admitted there was a gun in the bedroom closet and led the agents to it.
Procedural Posture:
- Delbert Mobley was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Mobley filed a pretrial motion to suppress his statement about the gun, arguing it was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the agent's question fell within the 'public safety exception' from New York v. Quarles.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Mobley on the felon-in-possession charge.
- The district court granted the government's motion to sentence Mobley as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years.
- Mobley, as appellant, appealed both his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
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 'public safety' exception to Miranda permit police to question a suspect about weapons in their home after the suspect has invoked their right to counsel, when there is no objective evidence of an immediate danger to the police or public?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Ervin
No. The 'public safety' exception does not apply on these facts because there was no objectively reasonable concern for immediate danger that would justify questioning Mobley after he invoked his right to counsel. The court held that while the public safety exception from New York v. Quarles can theoretically apply after a suspect invokes their right to counsel under Edwards v. Arizona, the exception must be construed narrowly. It requires an 'objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from any immediate danger.' In this case, Mobley was secured, had been found alone after a security sweep, and was naked when he answered the door, indicating he was unarmed. These circumstances represented a routine arrest, not a situation posing an immediate threat. Therefore, the questioning was a violation of Edwards. However, the court affirmed the conviction on harmless error grounds, reasoning that the gun itself was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine (due to the search warrant), and the other evidence of possession was so overwhelming that the improper admission of Mobley's statement did not affect the trial's outcome.
Concurring - Senior Judge Harvey
Yes. The 'public safety' exception did apply, and the questioning was permissible. This opinion agrees with the ultimate judgment to affirm the conviction but disagrees with the majority's reasoning on the suppression issue. The concurring judge argued that the district court's finding of an objectively reasonable need to protect the officers was not clearly erroneous. The agent's question was reasonably prompted by a concern for the safety of the officers who were about to conduct a search, as it is common for drug dealers to possess weapons or booby traps in their residences. Therefore, the question fell squarely within the Quarles public safety exception, the evidence was properly admitted, and there was no need to resort to a harmless error analysis.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for formally extending the Quarles public safety exception to the post-invocation-of-counsel context established by Edwards, a question of first impression in the Fourth Circuit. However, the court simultaneously constrained the exception's use, emphasizing it is not a blanket license to question suspects about weapons but requires a specific, objective, and immediate danger. The case serves as a key illustration of how a defendant's conviction can be affirmed despite a constitutional violation, by applying remedial doctrines like inevitable discovery and the harmless error standard, showing that a violation does not automatically lead to reversal if the outcome would have been the same.
