USA v. Mata

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RAUL TOMAS MATA,
Defendant.
1:22-CR-10026-CBK
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR
DISPOSITION OF MOTION
TO SUPPRESS
In this assault and firearm discharge case, Raul Tomas Mata (Mata) moves to
suppress all statements he made in three interviews relating to a house shooting
investigation. 	All 	three 	of 	them 	sidestepped 	Miranda. 	Mata 	though 	only 	made
incriminating statements in the third one. Because those statements should be excluded
as substantive – but not impeachment – evidence, Mata’s suppression motion should be
granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
Just after 1:00 a.m. on April 29, 2022, 911 received reports of shots fired into a
residence in Little Eagle, SD that struck a female child. 	Investigators reviewed
surveillance footage and spoke with witnesses, leading them to believe it was a drive-by
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

2
shooting involving an Impala. At about 2:20 a.m., Bureau of Indian Affairs Special Agent
Dustin Dobbs (Dobbs) and another officer located and stopped an Impala matching the
description and detained the two occupants for questioning. Mata arrived at the scene
of the traffic stop, within the hour, apparently to check on his friends who were in the
car. Officers immediately handcuffed him.
A. First Interview
A couple of hours afterward, Dobbs and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special
Agent Joel Smith (Smith) interviewed Mata in Dobbs’s vehicle. Dobbs advised Mata of
his Miranda rights. 	Mata waived them, spoke to agents for about 20-minutes, then
invoked his right to remain silent:
Smith: 	. . . . And how long are you there for?
Mata: 	For a while. I don’t even know to be honest.
Smith: 	Okay. Best guess.
Mata: 	Well, I don’t know. I kind of feel uncomfortable answering.
Smith: 	Okay.
Mata: 	I’d like to remain silent.
Smith: 	Okay.
Dobbs: 	I think I’m going to - - okay.
Smith: 	That’s - - that’s your right. Just on that question then, can we
ask you about other questions?
Mata: 	Uh just in general.
Smith: 	Okay. So you - - you want to be silent then.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Mata: 	Yeah.
Smith: 	Okay. All right.
Dobbs: 	Is that it?
Smith: 	Yeah.
Dobbs: 	Okay. The time is 5:30 p.m. - - or 5:30 a.m.1
B. Second Interview
Agents subsequently arrested Mata and transported him to the adult correctional
facility in Fort Yates, North Dakota. 	Dobbs secured a search warrant for Mata’s DNA,
and interviewed Mata a second time at about 6:25 p.m. that same day with Bureau of
Indian Affairs Special Agent Sparky Edwards (Edwards) present. After Dobbs read the
Miranda warning, Mata invoked his right to remain silent, but agents pushed on:
Dobbs: 	So having those rights in mind, will you talk to us about this
incident?
Mata: 	Um I would just like to remain quiet, sir.
Edwards: 	You want to stay quiet? I mean, is it okay if we talk to you
about some things?
Mata: 	Um what is it about?2
Leveraging their mutual experience in military service, Edwards then pontificated
about the need to locate the gun in hopes of engaging Mata:
1 Mot. Hr’g. Ex. 1, Recording 1, at 21:10-21:54 (Nov. 2, 2022).
2 Mot. Hr’g. Ex. 1, Recording 2, at 01:31-01:50.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

4
Edwards: 	. . . . Are you at least willing to help us get that [gun] so we
can put it away where nobody is going to get hurt?
Mata: 	(unintelligible), sir.
Edwards: 	What’s that?
Mata: 	Um I would just like to remain quiet, sir.
Edwards: 	Okay. Okay. Like I said, we’ll - - we’ll respect whatever you
want to do. My - - again, just my hope was that you would
know that you don’t want that [gun] out there. So if you - - if
you change your mind and want - - want to do that before
something bad happens, just tell us. I can see it weighing on
you.
Mata: 	I’d just like to remain quiet, sir.3
Edwards and Dobbs persisted for about four more minutes in an attempt to get
Mata to cooperate and “help [him]self out.”4 Edwards, in particular, talked about coming
in to assist a fellow soldier and “brother of mine” and the benefits of cooperating
(“especially from somebody in the Armed Forces.”).5 While Dobbs collected the buccal
swab, he and Edwards sought to keep the conversation going:
Edwards: 	. . . . Like I said, you got to know a staff sergeant cares about
their Joes. So again, I do, but I can only help you if you want
to help yourself.
Mata: 	Yes, sir.
Edwards: 	Okay.
3 Id. at 03:18-03:56.
4 Id. at 03:57-08:01.
5 Id. at 05:11-06:44.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

5
Dobbs: 	Do you have any questions for us?
Mata: 	Um when - -
Edwards: 	You can ask anything.
Mata: 	When um court I guess.
Dobbs: 	On Monday.
Mata: 	Monday?
Edwards: 	Yeah. . . . I got to ask before I - - before we end all this, because
I’ve got to make sure that I did what I could when I leave here
- - because I’ve got to go home and sleep too - - is that gun
going to get in a kid’s hands? Is it possible? Just tell me at least
that. 	I mean, if it’s somewhere safe that you know it’s not
going to, then so be it, but is a kid going to get ahold of it?
Mata: 	I would just like to remain quiet, sir.
Edwards: 	Okay.6
C. Third Interview
About two days later, on May 1, 2022, Dobbs interviewed Mata a third time. In
this interview, Dobbs prefaced the Miranda warning with nine minutes worth of
investigation details and references to an incident involving Braxton Little Dog. Dobbs
also alluded to Mata’s family possibly being in danger:
Dobbs: 	. . . . Um but again, since you’re in custody, before I ask you
any questions, I have to advise you of your rights just because
you’re not free to leave.
Mata: 	Right.
6 Id. at 08:02-09:11.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

6
Dobbs: 	You’re in custody. Okay?
Mata: 	Right.
Dobbs: 	So I’m going to go over those with you right now. Again, read
them just like I’ve been doing. Um.
Mata: 	Is my family okay though?
Dobbs: 	Right now, yes. Right now they are. . . .7
From there, Dobbs mentioned talking to Mata’s uncle about retaliation and trying
to smooth things over with the family before giving the Miranda advisement:
Dobbs: 	. . . . Having those rights in mind, will you talk with me about,
you know - - if there’s anything you don’t want to answer,
you can just tell me, “Hey, Dobbs, I don’t want to answer
that.”
Mata: 	Okay.
Dobbs: 	But I want to - - I want to go back to some of the other stuff.
Mata: 	Okay.
Dobbs: 	Okay? Are you okay answering questions about that?
Mata: 	Um a few things I’m okay, but it’s just, like, Braxton’s playing
with my life right now.
Dobbs: 	Okay.
Mata: 	Like - -
Dobbs: 	Um and we can get into that. Okay? But, first, I - - I want to
make sure that you understand that - - you understand the
rights I just read to you.
Mata: 	Okay.
7 Mot. Hr’g. Ex. 1, Recording 3, at 08:20-08:49.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

7
Dobbs: 	Do you understand those?
Mata: 	Yeah.
Dobbs: 	Okay. And I’ll talk to - - with you about the Braxton stuff.
Mata: 	Okay.
Dobbs: 	Um for sure. Do you - - will you speak with me about this?
Mata: 	Um I respect you, but I just want to remain quiet.
Dobbs: 	You want to remain quiet? Okay.
Mata: 	Yes, sir.
Dobbs: 	Can I ask you question - - or you don’t have to answer me - -
Mata: 	Yes, sir.
Dobbs: 	- - answer every question that I ask.
Mata: 	Yes, sir.
Dobbs: 	Um but can I ask you just a couple - - or some questions? And,
you know, if you feel that you want to answer them, answer
them. If you don’t say, “Hey, Dobbs, I don’t want to answer
them.”
Mata: 	Yes, sir.
Dobbs: 	Is that okay with you?
Mata: 	I’m okay with that.8
The interview proceeded for 35 more minutes and focused primarily on Little Dog.
Eventually, Dobbs asked where the gun was:
Dobbs: 	. . . Will you tell me where it’s at?
8 Id. at 10:06-11:24.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

8
Mata: 	Um with that I would just like to remain quiet on that one, sir.
Dobbs: 	Okay. Um let me see where else I can go. . . .9
After this point, Dobbs described the sweeping nature of a criminal conspiracy
and how it puts others at risk and, while doing so, circled back to the peril Mata and his
family faced.10 Although Dobbs paused his questioning, he returned to it with another
gun query:
Dobbs: 	. . . . But, again, the only thing I can keep going back to is that
firearm because that is going to be what the higher powers are
going to want. Okay? So I’m going to ask again: You know,
can you please tell me where that gun is?
Mata: 	Mm I would just like to remain quiet because I feel like - - -
Dobbs: 	What do you feel like?
Mata: 	Being accused.
Dobbs: 	Okay.
Mata: 	I would just like to remain quiet now.
Dobbs: 	Okay. Yeah. I don’t have any other questions, man. Do you
have any questions for me?
Mata: 	No, sir.
Dobbs: 	No? Okay. Um yeah, I think that’s - - that’s about it. Do you
have - - do you have a girlfriend or anything?11
9 Id. at 45:28-46:00.
10 Id. at 46:00-56:09.
11 Id. at 56:10-57:31.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

9
Then, Dobbs wended ahead and asked a bunch more questions, obtaining further
information from Mata, before finally ending the interview:
Dobbs: 	. . . . Well, anything else?
Mata: 	No, sir.
Dobbs: 	No? Anything I didn’t ask that you think I should know
before we stop? Anything.
Mata: 	No, sir.
Dobbs: 	No? Okay. We can conclude the interview. 12
A federal grand jury ultimately indicted Mata and charged him with assault with
intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious
bodily injury, and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.13 Mata thereafter
moved to suppress the statements he made during the three interviews and the Court
held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. During the hearing, Mata conceded that only
the third interview contained incriminating statements and that it alone was the one
subject to suppression.14 The government resisted the motion.15 The Court then took the
matter under advisement.16
12 Id. at 59:14-59:37.
13 Docket No. 1.
14 Docket No. 33 at 82.
15 Docket No. 23.
16 Docket No. 33 at 82.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

10
DISCUSSION
A. Invocation
Mata first claims that the statements he made to Dobbs should be suppressed
because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. 	The recording of the
third interview shows that after being Mirandized, Mata said he wanted to “remain
quiet.” Mata argues that these utterances were sufficient as a matter of law to trigger his
right to silence and cut off any questioning of him.
Miranda requires that law enforcement officers provide certain warnings before
they conduct an interrogation of a suspect in custody, and police may not proceed with
questioning if the suspect indicates a desire to remain silent.17 In the context of invoking
the Miranda right to counsel, the Supreme Court has held that a suspect must do so
“unambiguously.”18 If the suspect says something about this right “that is ambiguous or
equivocal” then police need not end the interrogation, nor must they clarify whether the
suspect wants to invoke his Miranda rights.19
The same standards apply for determining when a suspect invokes his Miranda
right to remain silent.20 These standards, the Supreme Court has declared, “protect the
17 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 430, 473-74, 78-79 (1966).
18 Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994).
19 Id. at 459, 461-62.
20 Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 381 (2010); see also Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 648
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

11
privilege against compulsory self-incrimination,21 by requiring an interrogation to cease
when either right is invoked.”22 The suspect may selectively invoke his right to remain
silent, confining it to certain questions or subject matters without requiring that the
interview cease.23 If the suspect selectively invokes his right to remain silent, then officers
must not continue asking questions about the subject matter the suspect wants to avoid.24
(1984) (“[M]uch of the logic and language of [Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)]”
which discuss the Miranda right to remain silent “could be applied to the invocation of
the [Miranda right to counsel].”).
21 See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-73.
22 Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381; see Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103-04; Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707,
719 (1979).
23 See United States v. Reynolds, 743 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (D.S.D. 2010) (citing Fare, 442
U.S. at 727; United States v. Eaton, 890 F.2d 511, 513 (1st Cir. 1989)); see also Hurd v. Terhune,
619 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that defendant’s refusal to respond to certain
officer questions does not require interrogation to cease, and that defendant’s silence or
refusal to answer is inadmissible (citing Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19; Berghuis, 560
U.S. at 381)).
24 See Michaels v. Davis, 51 F.4th 904, 924 (9th Cir. 2022) (“In the context of selective
invocation of the Miranda right to silence, the cessation requirement means that police
officers cannot continue to ask about the same subject the suspect said he did not want to
talk about.”); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King & Orin S. Kerr,
Criminal Procedure § 6.9(g) (4th ed. 2021) (“But if the defendant ‘clearly and unequivocally
invoked his Miranda rights selectively,’ that is a sufficient invocation of Miranda with
respect to the specific situation covered by the invocation.” (quoting Arnold v. Runnels,
421 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

12
That said, a suspect who wants to invoke his right to remain silent must “do so
unambiguously”25 with a “clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent.”26 The
suspect need not speak any magic words.27 An unambiguous invocation of the suspect’s
“right to cut off questioning” must be “scrupulously honored.”28 	But an “[i]ndirect,
ambiguous, or equivocal statement[] or assertion[] of an intent to exercise the right to
remain silent [is] not enough to invoke that right . . . .”29 and a reasonable officer may
25 Berghuis, 560 U.S. at 381; see also United States v. Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d 565, 569 (8th
Cir. 2007) (“A suspect invokes his right to remain silent by making ‘a clear, consistent
expression of the desire to remain silent.’ Indirect, ambiguous, and equivocal statements
or assertions of an intent to exercise the right are not enough to invoke it for purposes of
Miranda.”); Mann v. Thalacker, 246 F.3d 1092, 1100 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Being evasive and
reluctant to talk is different from invoking one’s right to remain silent.”).
26 Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d at 569 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Thompson, 866
F.2d 268, 272 (8th Cir. 1989)).
27 See Miranda 384 U.S. at 445 (“if the individual . . . indicates in any manner that he does
not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.” (emphasis added));
Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781, 788 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“the Supreme Court . . .
[has not] required that a suspect seeking to invoke his right to silence provide any
statement more explicit or more technically-worded than ‘I have nothing to say.’”
(citation omitted)); United States v. Wolfe, No. 8:17-CR-154, 2017 WL 5989216 (D. Neb.
Nov. 14, 2017), R&R adopted sub nom. United States v. Merrick, No. 8:17-CR-154, 2017 WL
5990131 (D. Neb. Dec. 1, 2017) (“[d]efendant’s assertion that ‘Okay, I just want to quit
now,’ was a clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous request to invoke her right to remain
silent and to end the interrogation.”); but see United States v. Adams, 820 F.3d 317, 323-24
(8th Cir. 2016) (holding that, in its context, defendant saying, “Nah, I don’t want to talk,
man,” was not unambiguous assertion of right to remain silent).
28 Mosley, 423 U.S. at 103 (citation omitted).
29 Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d at 569 (citing United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir.
1995).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

13
properly 	attempt 	to 	clarify 	an 	ambiguous 	invocation.30 	Whether 	a 	suspect
unambiguously invoked the right is a factual determination for the court,31 assessing the
suspect’s statements as an objective, reasonable person would understand them within
the context of the interview.32
In the third interview (the only one subject to suppression) Mata stated he wanted
to “remain quiet” at least five separate times in response to Dobbs’s questioning.33 But
for each of Mata’s invocations, Dobbs testified that he thought “quiet” was “ambiguous,
meaning it’s open to interpretation,” and, “in this case, quiet wasn’t specified what [Mata]
wanted to be quiet on.”34 An objective officer would understand that “I would just like
to remain quiet” means virtually the same thing as “I would like to remain silent.”35
30 See Davis, 512 U.S. at 461 (in right to counsel context, “when a suspect makes an
ambiguous 	or 	equivocal 	statement 	it 	will 	often 	be 	good 	police 	practice 	for 	the
interviewing officers to clarify whether or not he actually wants an attorney”).
31 Ferrer-Montoya, 483 F.3d at 569 (citing United States v. Cody, 114 F.3d 772, 775 (8th Cir.
1997)).
32 See Simmons v. Bowersox, 235 F.3d 1124, 1131 (8th Cir. 2001) (“To determine whether a
defendant has unequivocally invoked the right to remain silent, the defendant’s
statements are considered as a whole.”); Smith v. Boughton, 43 F.4th 702, 710-11 (7th Cir.
2022) (analyzing defendant’s statements in response to question posed).
33 Mot. Hr’g Ex. 1, Recording 3 at 10:55-11:06, 45:28-45:39, 56:35-56:48, 57:05-57:11.
34 Docket No. 33 at 71.
35 See id. at 70 (when asked, Dobbs himself admits that quiet is a synonym for silent and
that the two can be interpreted the same).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

14
In tandem with his refusal to accept Mata’s words for their plain and recognizable
meaning, Dobbs insisted he thought Mata only wanted to be silent on specific questions
and did not mean to end the entire interview.36 But Dobbs asked the questions anyway.
To Dobbs’s credit, an objective person would agree that Mata’s first two invocations were
selective, and only his later response was meant to cut off all questioning. Even so, given
Dobbs’s unceasing questions, the result of Mata’s invocations – selective and general –
require that the entire third interview be suppressed.
1. 	Braxton
After reading the Miranda warning, Dobbs indirectly (or incompletely) asked Mata
if he would waive his rights generally and then jumped right to whether Mata would
speak with Dobbs about the “Braxton stuff.”37 Mata responded that he did not want to
discuss that subject, and confirmed as much when Dobbs asked, “You want to remain
quiet? Okay.” “Yes, sir,” Mata said.38 	Although selective, this clear invocation Dobbs
ignored too, as he gingerly queried, “Can I ask you question - - or you don’t have to
answer me . . . answer every question that I ask.”39 From there the interview continued
36 Id. at 35-36, 39- 40, 57, 62, 71, 73-74.
37 Mot. Hr’g Ex. 1, Recording 3, at 10:45-10:50.
38 Id. at 10:06-11:24.
39 Id.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

15
another 30-minutes, exclusively about Mata’s history with Little Dog.40 	Because Mata
unambiguously, though selectively, invoked his right to remain silent about the Little
Dog subject matter, and Dobbs failed to “scrupulously honor” the right and carried on
with questions about that matter, the portion relating to it (which was most of the
interview) 41 should be suppressed.
2. 	Gun
At about 45- minutes into the interview, Dobbs asked Mata where the gun was.
Mata replied, “Um with that I would just like to remain quiet on that one, sir.”42 By doing
so, Mata selectively invoked his right to remain silent – and once again, Dobbs ignored
it. 	Dobbs followed Mata’s eschewing with a 10-minute harangue, then returned to the
gun: “So I’m going to ask again: You know, can you please tell me where that gun is?”43
Since Mata had already selectively invoked on the gun issue, any further questions
germane to it violated Mata’s right to silence. That segment of the interview, concerning
the gun and its whereabouts,44 should therefore be suppressed as well.
40 Id. at 11:25-42:27.
41 Id. at 11:03-45:28.
42 Id. at 45:28-46:00.
43 Id. at 56:27-56:35.
44 Id. at 45:29-57:11.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

16
3. 	General Invocation
After Dobbs pressed Mata the second time to reveal where the gun was, Mata
exercised his silence right once more: “Mm I would just like to remain quiet because I feel
like - - -.” Before Mata could finish, Dobbs interjected: “What do you feel like?” Mata
repeated, “Being accused,”to which Dobbs answered “Okay.”45 Mata then reiterated that
“I would just like to remain quiet now.”46 His invocation covered the rest of the interview
and all questioning after that point should have ceased. Dobbs though dismissed Mata’s
request and general invocation and peppered Mata with questions about his girlfriend,
“baby mama,” and more.47 	None of Dobbs’s questions were permissible and the
statements Mata made, after generally invoking his right to remain silent,48 should be
suppressed.
B. Impeachment
Having determined that the government may not use Mata’s statements before
resting its case against him, the Court must decide whether the statements are admissible
for impeachment purposes.
45 Id. at 56:36-57:06.
46 Id. at 57:07-57:31.
47 See id. at 57:17-59:26.
48 Id. at 57:12-59:37.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

17
Although statements taken in violation of the prophylactic Miranda rules cannot
be used as substantive evidence, they may still be admissible to impeach the conflicting
testimony of a defendant.49 	The prosecution cannot convict a defendant based on
evidence acquired in disregard of constitutional guarantees and their judicially created
protections. But the use of statements so gained to impeach prior inconsistent testimony
is a different story. If the defendant chooses to testify on his own behalf, then he assumes
a reciprocal “obligation to speak truthfully and accurately,”50 and may not “turn the
illegal method by which evidence in the government’s possession was obtained to his
own advantage and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths.”51
It is only when the defendant’s statements are involuntary that they must be excluded
for all purposes.52
49 See Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 722-23 (1975); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224-26
(1971).
50 Harris, 401 U.S. at 225.
51Id. at 224 (quoting Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 65 (1954)); see also Hass, 420 U.S. at
723 (applying same rationale where suspect advised of his rights and then asked for
counsel but questioned without request being honored); see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S.
298, 307, 309 (1985) (“Despite the fact that patently voluntary statements taken in violation
of Miranda must be excluded from the prosecution’s case, the presumption of coercion
does not bar their use for impeachment purposes on cross-examination . . . . If errors are
made by law enforcement officers in administering the prophylactic Miranda procedures,
they should not breed the same irremediable consequences as police infringement of the
Fifth Amendment itself.”).
52See New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 459 (1979); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 389
(1978).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

18
When statements to law enforcement are “the product of an essentially free and
unconstrained 	choice 	by 	their 	maker,” 	they 	are 	voluntary.53 	Statements 	are 	not
considered involuntary unless the police extorted them from the accused through
coercive activity.54 Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that
statements are involuntary under the Due Process Clause.55 Voluntariness is judged by
the totality of the circumstances.56
Although Dobbs failed to respect Mata’s right to remain silent, nothing reveals
that Mata’s will was overborne. 	Mata had a high school diploma, was respectful,
appeared to understand what agents said, and appropriately communicated with them.57
53 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973).
54 United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476, 482 (8th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up).
55 Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986).
56 United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc); United States v. Daniels,
775 F.3d 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2014) (“We consider, among other things, the degree of
police coercion, the length of the interrogation, its location, its continuity, and the
defendant's maturity, education, physical condition, and mental condition.”).
57 See Docket Nos. 12 (reflecting Mata a high school graduate) and 33 at 8 (Mata had
military training and was “very cognitive,” “very alert,” “respectful,” and “very well
suited to talk”), 23 (he was “respectful” and maintained a “respectful tone”), 34 (“he
understood fully what I said to him, questions, and our conversations . . . seemed to me
like a normal conversation. . . . Mata appeared very well put together.”); Mot. Hr’g Ex. 1,
Recording 3 (he often responded with “Yes, sir,” or “No, sir.”).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

19
He maintained a calm, collected demeanor throughout the interview,58 and demonstrated
his free will when he expressed a desire to selectively speak on certain topics. When Mata
did answer questions, he was often cagey with his responses, further showing his
aptitude. And when Dobbs leaned on him, Mata repeatedly asserted that he would like
to “remain quiet.”
The interview took place in the same room as the second one and lasted less than
an hour. 59 And at no time while the two were together that afternoon did Dobbs yell,
brandish a weapon, use force, employ punishment, or otherwise coerce Mata.60
True, Dobbs made reference, during the interview, to threats to Mata’s family
possibly coming from other individuals associated with the shooting incident. But law
enforcement was not the source of the threats, if they even existed at all, and Dobbs said
he was working to resolve them.61, 62
58 See Docket No. 33 at 34 (“Mata seemed receptive to . . . our conversation” and “[h]e
spoke cordial[ly] to me.”).
59 Docket No. 33 at 32-33, 35, 57.
60 Mot. Hr’g Ex. 1, Recording 3; Docket No. 33 at 32-34.
61 See Mot. Hr’g Ex. 1, Recording 3, at 2:05-3:23.
62 See, e.g., United States v. Astello, 241 F.3d 965, 967-68 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding that although
threats raised by law enforcement to elicit confession may affect voluntariness of
suspect’s statements, officers suggesting potential “disgrace” to suspect’s family if he did
not confess did not by itself make suspect’s statements involuntary).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

20
Dobbs managed to get Mata to talk after the invocations. Mata’s choice to speak
(contrary to his expressed desire not to) seems, however, to be a product of his own
indecision or curiosity about what Dobbs would ask him. 	The interview recording
establishes that, notwithstanding his repeated “I would just like to remain quiet,” Mata
still comprehended his predicament. When Mata spoke, he did so voluntarily; when he
refrained, he did it with a resolved willpower. Dobbs’s tactics – while contrary to Miranda
– did not undermine Mata’s free-will and decision-making abilities. Mata’s amenability
to selectively invoke his right to silence dwindles any possibility of an overborne will.
His statements were voluntarily made and should be admissible as impeachment
evidence.
CONCLUSION
When prefaced by the April 29 interviews, (the second one being particularly
egregious in snubbing Miranda, yet yielding no incriminatory fruits), Dobbs made little
effort to “scrupulously” respect Mata’s right to remain silent when the two met again on
May 1. 	And even though Mata did not veritably speak the coined words of Miranda
during the meeting, he clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly invoked his Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent and any objectively reasonable officer would have
known that. Dobb’s dissolute manner of questioning, through repeated attempts to elicit
incriminating statements after Mata expressed his desire to remain silent, was out of line
with Miranda and should be rebuked. 	But the totality of the circumstances show Mata
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

21
made his statements voluntarily. 	So the government should be allowed to use the
statements for impeachment purposes if Mata gives contrary testimony at trial.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the authorities and legal analysis set forth in this report, and the record
before the Court, it is
RECOMMENDED that Mata’s Motion to Suppress Evidence63 be granted in part
and denied in part. The Motion should be granted to the extent that it seeks to exclude
Mata’s May 1, 2022 statements as substantive evidence; but denied insofar as the Motion
seeks to suppress the statements as impeachment when and if he takes the stand and
contradicts what he earlier said.
NOTICE
The parties have 14 calendar days after service of this report and recommendation
to object to the same.64 Unless an extension of time for cause is later obtained,65 failure to
63 See Docket No. 21.
64 See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b).
65 See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665, 667 &
n.3 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>

22
file timely objections will result in the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.66
Objections must “identify[] those issues on which further review is desired[.]”67
DATED this 29th day of November, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
MARK A. MORENO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
66 See Thompson, 897 F.2d at 357; Nash, 781 at 667.
67 Arn, 474 U.S. at 155.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 36 Filed 11/30/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: <pageID>