United States v. Vincent Anthony Perdue
1993 WL 437983, 8 F.3d 1455, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 28321 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An investigatory stop that is permissible under the Fourth Amendment may nevertheless be so intrusive and coercive as to create a custodial situation for Fifth Amendment purposes, requiring Miranda warnings before interrogation. A confession obtained under such coercive circumstances is involuntary, and a subsequent post-Miranda confession is also inadmissible unless a sufficient break in the stream of events dissipates the initial coercion.
Facts:
- Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on a rural property after aerial surveillance indicated marijuana cultivation.
- During the search, officers found approximately 500 marijuana plants, drug paraphernalia, a loaded pistol, and an unloaded shotgun inside a metal building.
- Vincent Perdue and his pregnant fiancee drove up the long dirt road leading to the property.
- Upon observing the large police presence, Perdue's car stopped, reversed direction, and attempted to leave.
- Officers Carreno and Tate, with weapons drawn, stopped the car and ordered Perdue to get out and lie face down on the ground.
- While Perdue was on the ground at gunpoint, Officer Carreno questioned him about his presence on the property.
- In response to the questions, Perdue admitted he was there to 'check on his stuff' and confessed that the marijuana in the shed belonged to him and his fiancee.
- Immediately following this confession, Perdue was advised of his Miranda rights for the first time and was then subjected to a second, longer interrogation by another agent, during which he made further incriminating statements.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Perdue was charged in U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and a related firearms offense.
- Prior to trial, Perdue filed a motion to suppress his second, post-Miranda confession, which the district court denied.
- During trial, the government revealed Perdue's first, pre-Miranda confession, and the district court ruled it was also admissible.
- A jury found Perdue guilty on both counts.
- Perdue filed post-trial motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, arguing the confessions were improperly admitted. The district court denied both motions.
- Perdue (appellant) appealed his convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing the district court erred in admitting the two confessions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do incriminating statements made by a suspect who is stopped at gunpoint, forced to lie face down on the ground, and questioned without being read his Miranda rights violate his Fifth Amendment rights, rendering both those statements and subsequent post-Miranda statements inadmissible at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - McKay, Chief Judge.
Yes. The statements violate the Fifth Amendment and were improperly admitted into evidence. Although the initial stop and use of force were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for officer safety (a valid Terry stop), the degree of intrusion created a custodial situation for Fifth Amendment purposes. Forcing Perdue from his car at gunpoint and questioning him while he lay on the ground curtailed his freedom of action to a degree associated with a formal arrest. A reasonable person in Perdue's position would have felt completely at the mercy of the police. Because he was in custody and subjected to interrogation, the officers' failure to provide Miranda warnings renders his first confession inadmissible. Furthermore, the confession was involuntary under the Due Process Clause due to the overwhelmingly coercive atmosphere. The second, post-Miranda confession is also inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' because there was no sufficient break in the stream of events to dissipate the coercion from the initial encounter; it occurred minutes later in the same intimidating environment, and Perdue had already 'let the cat out of the bag'.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the crucial distinction between a Fourth Amendment seizure and Fifth Amendment custody, establishing that police tactics deemed reasonable for officer safety during a Terry stop can simultaneously trigger Miranda's custodial interrogation protections. The ruling forces law enforcement to make a choice: highly intrusive measures for safety may be used, but they come at the cost of requiring Miranda warnings before any questioning designed to elicit an incriminating response can begin. This case serves as a key precedent for analyzing the 'totality of the circumstances' to determine when an investigative detention crosses the line into a de facto arrest, thus implicating a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights.
