United States v. Nikolay Bocharnikov
Not available in provided text (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a confession results from a Fourth Amendment violation, the government must prove not only that the confession was voluntary, but also that there was a sufficient break in events to attenuate the taint of the initial illegality, even if a significant amount of time has passed, if the subsequent questioning explicitly links back to the original unlawful conduct.
Facts:
- In July 2017, a Portland police aircraft flying over Gresham, Oregon, was struck by a green laser, and its equipment determined the laser's source as Nikolay Bocharnikov’s residence.
- Shortly after midnight, three uniformed Multnomah County Sheriff’s Department (MCSD) officers arrived at Bocharnikov’s home.
- Bocharnikov, wet from the shower and wearing only his boxer shorts, came to the door and initially stated that “it was the kids.”
- An officer handcuffed Bocharnikov, sat him on his front steps, explained “the seriousness of the incident,” and said they “were there only to recover the laser in question.”
- Bocharnikov then admitted to shining the laser at the plane, apologized, and had his wife retrieve the laser and hand it over to the officers.
- During this July 2017 encounter, Bocharnikov was not told he was under arrest, nor was he given Miranda warnings.
- Eight months later, in March 2018, FBI Special Agent Adam Hoover approached Bocharnikov outside his home and asked if he “could ask some follow-up questions regarding the laser strike from the previous summer.”
- Bocharnikov immediately stated that it “was a stupid thing to do” and “it was a mistake,” explaining that he initially denied shining the laser due to an innate fear of police from growing up in Kyrgyzstan.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Nikolay Bocharnikov on one count of aiming a laser at an aircraft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 39A.
- Bocharnikov moved to suppress his statements to FBI Agent Hoover in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, arguing they were tainted by the illegality of his detention and interrogation the previous July.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Bocharnikov’s motion, holding that the March 2018 interview “was not a continuation of the July 2017 interrogation.”
- Bocharnikov then pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Bocharnikov, as the defendant-appellant, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the United States of America was the plaintiff-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 an eight-month temporal separation, coupled with an FBI agent's 'follow-up questions' that explicitly reference an earlier illegal detention and confession, sufficiently attenuate the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation to render a subsequent confession admissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Jay S. Bybee
No, an eight-month temporal separation, when coupled with an FBI agent's explicit reference to 'follow-up questions' regarding an earlier illegal detention and confession, does not sufficiently attenuate the taint of the initial Fourth Amendment violation to render a subsequent confession admissible. The court explained that when a confession results from a Fourth Amendment violation, the government must prove both voluntariness and a 'sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation,' as per Oregon v. Elstad and Brown v. Illinois. While eight months is a significant period, Agent Hoover's 'follow-up' phrasing directly linked the second encounter to the first, thereby collapsing the temporal distance and making it a de facto extension of the initial illegal detention and confession. The court found no other significant intervening circumstances—such as Miranda warnings, a change in location, or an opportunity to consult with counsel—that could have broken the causal chain. Although the record did not indicate that the officers' conduct was purposeful or flagrant, this factor alone was insufficient to overcome the strong causal link established by the 'follow-up' phrasing and the absence of other attenuating circumstances. Consequently, the government failed to carry its burden of proving sufficient attenuation.
Concurring - Vince Chhabria
Yes, reversal is warranted, but only because of how the case was presented to the panel, rather than an inherent requirement for attenuation analysis on similar facts. Judge Chhabria emphasized that the government failed to meaningfully analyze the specific nature of the initial constitutional violations. He highlighted that different violations (e.g., a pure Miranda violation, an arrest without a warrant but with probable cause under New York v. Harris, an arrest without probable cause, or a coerced confession) have distinct legal consequences regarding the necessity and application of an attenuation analysis. The government's decision to concede that the Brown v. Illinois attenuation analysis applied, without contesting issues like the presence of probable cause for the initial arrest or the voluntariness of the first confession, effectively forced the court into that framework. Judge Chhabria suggested that had the government properly argued that the initial violations might have been limited to a Miranda violation or a Payton violation (warrantless entry into a home with probable cause), no attenuation analysis would have been necessary, or the outcome might have been different. He concluded that the court should not have to 'bend over backwards, doing the government’s work for it.'
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the stringency of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule and the attenuation doctrine, particularly in situations where a subsequent interaction explicitly references an earlier illegal act. It clarifies that the mere passage of substantial time is insufficient to purge the taint of prior illegality if the causal chain is re-established by the nature of the later questioning. The concurring opinion provides a critical lesson for prosecutors, highlighting the strategic importance of precisely identifying the specific constitutional violations involved and tailoring legal arguments accordingly, as a failure to do so can lead courts to make assumptions that are unfavorable to the government's position.
