USA v. Mansell et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS
)
vs. )
) Case No. 1:19-cr-031
Terrell Jason Armstrong, )
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is Defendant Terrell Armstrong’s motion to suppress filed on December
13, 2019. See Doc. No. 145. Armstrong seeks an order suppressing a statement he made to
investigators on April 29, 2019. The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on
December 26, 2019. See Doc. No. 148. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 2, 2020.
Trial is scheduled to begin June 15, 2020. Armstrong filed a post hearing brief on March 20,
2020. See Doc. No. 196. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 29, 2019, law enforcement officers with the Northwest Metro Drug Task Force
executed a search warrant at 8555 Atlas Circle in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. Upon entry
into the residence, law enforcement made contact with Armstrong, an adult female (Yazuanie
Vanderbilt), and three children. Execution of the search warrant yielded mail for Armstrong, a
firearm, ammunition, marijuana, a money counter, cellular phones, and identification for
“Armondo Luisito Saizaria” with Armstrong’s photo on it. Law enforcement also located a safe
and U.S. Currency in excess of $66,000. Brooklyn Park Police Department Investigator Nicholas
1
Case 1:19-cr-00031-DMT Document 197 Filed 04/13/20 Page 1 of 4

Courtright interviewed Vanderbilt as well as Armstrong. Prior to reading Armstrong his
Miranda rights, Investigator Courtright asked him for his name, date of birth, cell phone number,
address, if he was employed, and where he was employed. Armstrong answered these questions.
Investigator Courtright then read Armstrong his Miranda rights. Upon being advised of his
rights, Armstrong declined to answer any additional questions and the interview ended.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Armstrong contends answers he gave to questions posed by investigators prior to being
advised of his Miranda rights should be suppressed. The Government maintains the questions
elicited nothing more than routine biographical information which do not require Miranda
warnings.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a privilege against
self-incrimination. Given this Fifth Amendment privilege, certain procedural safeguards must be
employed prior to interrogation of an individual by law enforcement officers. Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). It is well-established that law enforcement officers must
administer Miranda warnings whenever a suspect is “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning.” Id. at
478-79. The basic rule of Miranda is that a person must be advised of the right to be free from
compulsory self-incrimination and the right to counsel when a person is taken into custody for
questioning. United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1347 (8th Cir. 1990). Accordingly,
Miranda requires that law enforcement officers advise a person as to the availability of this
privilege against self-incrimination and to the assistance of counsel when a person is interrogated
2
Case 1:19-cr-00031-DMT Document 197 Filed 04/13/20 Page 2 of 4

while in custody. Id. “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during
questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at
473-74. For purposes of Miranda, an individual is in custody when he is either formally arrested
or his freedom of movement is constrained to a degree equivalent with formal arrest. United
States v. Brave Heart, 397 F.3d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir. 2005).
One exception to the Miranda rule is the routine booking question exception. United
States v. Brown, 101 F.3d 1272, 1274 (8th Cir.1996). “It is well-settled that routine biographical
data is exempted from Miranda’s coverage” and a person’s name is one example of such
information. Id. (citing Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990)). This exception is
rooted in the idea that questioning that is not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
does not require Miranda warnings. United States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388, 391 (8th Cir.
1985). In McLaughlin, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that a request by law
enforcement for a suspect’s address, telephone number, marital status, place of employment, and
home address are basic identification information and Miranda warnings are not required.
McLaughlin, 777 F.2d at 391-92.
In this case, Investigator Courtright asked Armstrong for his name, date of birth, cell
phone number, address, if he was employed, and where he was employed before advising him of
his Miranda rights. An inquiry into this type of basic background information does not trigger
Miranda. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d at 391-92. As the questions posed in this case fall squarely
within the exception, suppression is unwarranted.
3
Case 1:19-cr-00031-DMT Document 197 Filed 04/13/20 Page 3 of 4

III. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record, the parties’ arguments, and the
relevant case law. For the reasons set forth above, Armstrong’s motion to suppress (Doc. No.
145) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2020.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:19-cr-00031-DMT Document 197 Filed 04/13/20 Page 4 of 4