UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMPSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:25-CR-20 (LAG) (ALS)
:
CHARVEZ THOMPSON, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
:
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 28) and
Brief in Support of Motion to Suppress Statements. (Doc. 44). For the reasons below,
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2025, Defendant Charvez Thompson was charged with one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(8). (Doc. 1). On September 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress
Statements (Doc. 28), a Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 29), and a Motion to Dismiss
Indictment (Doc. 30). That same day, the Government responded to the Motion to Dismiss
Indictment. (Doc. 31). At the September 23, 2025 Pretrial Conference, the Court denied
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment and continued the trial pending an evidentiary
hearing on the Motions to Suppress, which the Court set for October 8, 2025. (Doc. 33).
Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the Pretrial Conference, the Government timely
responded to both Motions to Suppress on October 1, 2025. (Id.; Docs. 34, 35). On October
7, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Continue the evidentiary hearing, and the Court
rescheduled the hearing for October 29, 2025. (Docs. 36, 37, 39).
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 12

2
At the evidentiary hearing, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
Evidence1 (Doc. 29), but granted the Parties leave to file supplemental briefing as to the
Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 28). (Doc. 43 at 46:6–7, 47:10–17). Defendant timely
filed his Brief in Support of Motion to Suppress Statements on November 25, 2025 (Doc.
44), and the Government timely responded on December 12, 2025. (Doc. 45). Defendant
did not reply. (See Docket). The Motion to Suppress Statements is now ripe for review. See
M.D. Ga. L.R. 47.2.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
Defendant seeks to suppress an array of statements made in response to questions
from officers generally asking (1) what caused and happened during the altercation with
Camille Thompson (Thompson), Defendant’s mother; (2) whether Defendant had a gun;
and (3) where the gun was. (Doc. 44 at 9–10). At the evidentiary hearing the Government
offered the testimony of Officer David Fawcett and the Defense offered the testimony of
Eric Phillips. (See generally Doc. 43). Upon review of the witness’ testimony, the Parties’
briefing, and the body camera footage2, the Court makes the following findings of fact.
On 	June 	22, 	2024, 	Officer 	Fawcett 	responded 	to 	1302 	Bethune 	Drive 	(the
Residence) regarding a reported assault. (Doc. 35 at 1; Doc. 44 at 1). The complainant,
Thompson, alleged that Defendant pistol whipped her and was trying to flee the scene.
(Doc. 35 at 1; Doc. 43 at 20:15–21, 21:13–19; Doc. 44 at 1). When Officer Fawcett arrived
at the Residence, Thompson immediately approached his vehicle, yelling for the officer to
look at her face and that Defendant had pistol whipped her. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 00:54–01:21
(on file with the Court); Doc. 43 at 21:21–22). Officer Fawcett attempted to gain control
of the scene, telling Thompson to “Hold on. Be quiet and stand over there” and telling
1 	The Court found that, notwithstanding the issue of whether Defendant had standing to challenge
the search of the Dodge Ram, there was probable cause to support the search. (Doc. 43 at 46:6–47:10).
2 	The body camera footage initially was attached to the Government’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 34): Officer Fawcett’s body camera footage was attached as Exhibits
1 and 2 (Govt. Ex. 1, Govt. Ex. 2), and Officer Clark’s body camera footage was attached as Exhibit 3
(Govt. Ex. 3). Officer Fawcett’s body camera footage also was admitted during the evidentiary hearing as
Defense Exhibit 1. (See Doc. 43 at 15:3–10). For consistency, the Court cites the officers’ body camera
footage as Government’s Exhibits throughout the Order.
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 12

3
Defendant “Show me your hands. Show me your hands. I’m going to detain you until I
know what’s going on.” (Govt. Ex. 1 at 01:21–25). Defendant raised his hands and started
trying to explain what happened. Officer Fawcett told Defendant to turn around and again
informed Defendant that he was going to detain him “until [he knew] what [was] going
on.” (Id. at 01:25–31).
Officer Fawcett repeated the command to turn around several times; but, by the time
Officer Fawcett reached Defendant, Defendant still had not turned around. (Id. at 01:31–
33). Officer Fawcett told Defendant, “I am about to tase you.” (Id. at 01:33). Officer
Fawcett drew his taser, which had a laser site, pointed it at Defendant, and again threatened
to tase him if he didn’t comply. (Id. at 01:35). Within a few seconds, Defendant turned
around and put his hands behind his back. (Id. at 01:38–40). Officer Fawcett began
handcuffing Defendant, told Defendant that he was going to listen to everything Defendant
had to say, and asked Defendant to keep being reasonable. (Id. at 01:43–55). Defendant
stated, “I got you. I’m on probation. I have no reason to lie to you.” (Id. at 01:54–58).
Officer Fawcett told Thompson to be quiet several times while securing Defendant. Officer
Fawcett testified that he intended to wait for another officer to arrive so that he could
separate Thompson and Defendant, find out what had happened, and see if there were any
independent witnesses. (Doc. 43 at 23:1–4).
As Officer Fawcett secured the handcuffs, he asked Defendant if he had a gun.
(Govt. Ex. 1 at 02:11–12). Defendant responded, “No sir.” (Id.). Officer Fawcett told
Defendant that he would try to figure out what Thompson meant by “pistol whipped;” and
Defendant responded that Thompson was intoxicated. (Id. at 02:13–17). Officer Fawcett
then told Defendant that he would adjust the handcuffs so they wouldn’t get any tighter
and thanked Defendant for his cooperation. (Id. at 02:24–28). Defendant said, “I’m not
going to move because I haven’t done nothing. We just got done saving my truck from
getting freaking repo[ssessed] and because [Eric] 3 didn’t call her, and she’s been drinking
all day. She’s been acting a fool. This is why I moved from over here.” (Id. at 02:27–44).
3 	Eric is Thompson’s husband and the owner of the Dodge Ram. (Doc. 35 at 4 n.1).
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 12

4
In response to Defendant’s statement, Officer Fawcett asked, “So what is she talking about
then, about this supposed injury to her face?” (Id. at 02:45–48). Defendant replied, “I don’t
. . . know . . . besides the fact I got hit in the god dang face.” (Id. at 02:45–55). Thompson
walked toward Officer Fawcett and Defendant, demanding Defendant to tell the truth. (Id.
at 02:57–03:07). Officer Fawcett told Thompson that he would deal with her as soon as
another officer arrived. (Id.). Defendant continued talking and said, “My grandmother just
turned 74, and you can coax her into buying a god dang coke bottle. I’ve been with her
boyfriend all day. We just pulled up and she went god dang banana sandwich.” (Id. at
03:36–04:00).
Defendant continued talking while Officer Fawcett patted him down. Defendant
said, “This sh*t’s f*cking crazy. Once this is said and done, I’m sleeping. . . . I’m pushing
my truck down the road. I can’t deal with this. I’m stressed out enough trying not to go to
freaking prison . . . And this ain’t the first time that she’s gonna put hands on me and then
try to . . .” (Id. at 04:16–27, 04:32–44). After Officer Fawcett finished the pat-down, he
asked Defendant what happened, to which Defendant responded, “We pulled up. She’s out
here blaring the music. I asked her kindly to turn it down please because I had a headache.
. .,” and then began explaining that he was trying to move his belongings out of someone’s
yard. (Id. at 04:51–05:19). Officer Clark arrived, and Officer Fawcett briefly interrupted
Defendant to ask Officer Clark to “get with the complainant . . . and get a preliminary
statement from her.” (Id. 05:20–26). Defendant continued his response to Officer Fawcett’s
question and said, “I . . . we been trying to save my stuff for weeks. And I finally got his
truck finished, to run at least, so we went and got my truck. We are supposed to go in the
morning to get my dump truck, but we pull up and she is tripping out. She’s been acting a
fool since we been home.” (Id. at 05:30–49; Doc. 35 at 2–3; Doc. 44 at 3). As Defendant
spoke, Officer Fawcett shone a flashlight on Defendant’s face to look for any “obvious
injuries.” (Govt. Ex. 1 at 05:47–55).
Officer Fawcett then asked Defendant for his identifying information and wrote it
down on a notepad. (Id. at 06:02–48). Defendant told Officer Fawcett that he had been in
the heat all day and asked Officer Fawcett to get his (Defendant’s) drink out of the Dodge
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 12

5
Ram, which was also parked in the driveway. (Id. at 06:50–57). Officer Fawcett asked
Defendant to wait a second while he ran Defendant’s identifying information via radio. (Id.
at 07:04). Officer Fawcett then told Defendant, “Walk over here with me. Where’s your
drink?” (Id. at 07:22–23). As Officer Fawcett got Defendant’s drink from the Dodge Ram,
he asked Defendant, “What is she going to say happened?” (Id. at 07:55). Defendant
responded, “I don’t know what she is going to say to be honest with you.” (Id. at 07:56–
08:05). Officer Fawcett directed Defendant back to the Ford F-150. (Id. at 08:00–05).
Officer Fawcett again told Defendant that Thompson had mentioned “pistol whipping” and
asked Defendant if he had a weapon. (Id. at 08:07–10). Defendant responded, “No sir.” (Id.
at 08:10). Officer Fawcett poured the drink into Defendant’s mouth and then placed the
drink on the hood of the Ford F-150. (Id. at 08:15–20, 08:27–28). Officer Fawcett again
asked Defendant how Thompson got the injuries to her face, and Defendant responded,
“Injuries to her face? Probably when she freaking hit me . . . no freaking tackled me. She’s
intoxicated and looks like she’s probably high on something.” (Id. at 08:30–40).
Officer Fawcett pointed at the Dodge Ram and asked Defendant whether there were
any weapons in that vehicle. (Id. at 08:54–56). Defendant looked at the Dodge Ram and
said, “Nah, I wasn’t in that truck.” (Id. at 08:56–59). Officer Fawcett told Defendant that,
when he first arrived on scene, he saw Defendant standing near the Dodge Ram. (Id. at
08:59–09:02). Defendant said something about his cigarettes; and, as he and Officer
Fawcett walked over to the Dodge Ram, Defendant asked, “Actually could grab my
cigarettes please?” (Id. at 9:08–21). As Officer Fawcett opened the front passenger door to
the Dodge Ram, only a cell phone was visible on the front seat. Defendant identified the
phone as his and asked Officer Fawcett to grab it for him. (Id. at 09:21). Once Officer
Fawcett placed the phone in Defendant’s back pant pocket, he asked Defendant what else
belonged to him in the Dodge Ram and looked for Defendant’s cigarettes. (Id. at 09:22–
27, 10:02–04). Defendant said, “I threw my stuff in here because Eric was going to take
me to my friend’s house because I don’t want to be around this.” (Id. at 09:27–37). Officer
Fawcett conducted a cursory search of the Dodge Ram, looking under the seat, in the glove
compartment, and in the back seat. (Id. at 09:37–10:20). Officer Fawcett again asked
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 12

6
Defendant who the Dodge Ram belonged to, and Defendant again identified the vehicle as
Eric’s. (Id. at 10:20–24).
Just after Officer Fawcett put Defendant’s phone in his pocket, Officer Clark
approached and asked Defendant if he had anything in his boot. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 10:05–07;
Govt. Ex. 3 at 04:20). Defendant responded, “No ma’am . . .” (Govt. Ex. 1 at 10:07). This
question was prompted by Thompson’s statement that, while Defendant was hitting and
stomping on her, he pulled a gun out of his boot and started hitting her with it. (Govt. Ex.
3 at 03:47–51).
After Officer Fawcett finished searching the passenger side of Dodge Ram, he asked
Officer Clark to stand with Defendant. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 11:09–12). A second later, Officer
Fawcett told Officer Clark, while pointing at the Ford F-150, “He has a drink over there,
you can take him back over there.” (Id. at 11:13–17). Officer Clark and Defendant walked
to the driver’s side of the Ford F-150 where Officer Clark poured the drink into Defendant’s
mouth. (Govt. Ex. 3 at 05:33–38, 05:45–06:11). Officer Clark asked Defendant, “So what
happened tonight?” (Id. at 06:19–20). Defendant responded, “. . . come home, they’d been
arguing, me and Eric had been . . .” (Id. at 06:20–27). Officer Clark interrupted Defendant
when she shone her flashlight on Defendant’s face to look at the scratches, but Defendant
continued, “Yeah . . . I am not going to put my hands on her no matter how many times
she beats me and all that sh*t.” (Id. at 06:25–37). Officer Clark followed up with, “How
did she get the knot on her head?” (Id. at 06:38–40). Defendant replied, “Probably when
she tackled me, that’s how I got the scratches on my face.” (Id. at 06:41–45). After a couple
of minutes of Defendant venting about Thompson to Officer Clark, Defendant reached into
his back pocket to retrieve his cellphone. (Id. at 08:31–43). As Defendant unlocked his
cellphone, Officer Clark told him, “Don’t make no phone calls or nothing. At least not right
now.” (Id. at 08:45–53). Defendant nodded, and Officer Clark helped Defendant put the
cellphone on the hood of the Ford F-150. (Id. at 08:54–59). Officer Clark said, “Whenever
we figure out what’s going on then we’ll let you make a phone call.” (Id. at 08:59–09:02).
Both Officer Clark and Officer Fawcett interviewed Thompson, and Defendant’s
grandmother, Sandra Thompson-James (Thompson-James). (See generally Govt. Exs. 1,
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 12

7
3). Thompson told Officer Clark that Defendant kicked her in the back, hit her, stomped
on her, and beat her with a pistol. (Govt. Ex. 3 at 00:51). Thompson-James corroborated
Thompson’s story that Defendant kicked her in the back, hit her, stomped on her, and beat
her with a pistol. (Id. at 00:55). Thompson-James said that she had witnessed the attack
and agreed to give a statement. (Id. at 2:09). When interviewed by Officer Fawcett,
Thompson-James stated that she was in her bedroom watching the television when
Thompson entered the bedroom asking to use Thompson-James’ phone because Defendant
had taken Thompson’s. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 13:21–13:48). Thompson-James further recounted
that, although she didn’t see it, “apparently” Defendant and Thompson had gotten into an
altercation in the front yard and Thompson went into the house to call the police. (Id. at
13:50–14:03). Thompson-James stated that everything “jumped off” after Thompson
grabbed the phone out of Thompson-James’ hand to call the police. (Id. at 14:17–14:29).
Defendant jumped toward Thompson, punched her, threw her onto the ground, continued
to “beat her with his fists,” and pulled out a pistol with which he hit Thompson’s face and
back of her head. (Id. at 14:39–15:30, 49:17). Thompson-James told Officer Fawcett that,
during the altercation in the bedroom, Thompson did not hit or push Defendant. (Id. at
16:03–04, 16:29–34). Thompson-James said that this wasn’t the first time Defendant hit
Thompson, but it was the first time he pistol-whipped her. (Id. at 16:05–10). Thompson-
James had “no idea” where Defendant left the weapon after the altercation or where it could
be located. (Id. at 16:12, 34:28). Thompson and Thompson-James described the pistol as
small silver revolver with a black handle. (Id. at 36:56–37:07, 48:52–49:08). Thompson
also told Officer Fawcett that Defendant had the pistol in his boot. (Id. at 37:10–11).
After paramedics examined Defendant’s injuries, Defendant asked Officer Clark if
she could walk him to the backyard to get a cigarette from Eric. (Govt. Ex. 3 at 15:17–39).
The two walked to the backyard of the Residence, where Defendant spoke with Eric and
smoked a cigarette. (Id. at 15:40–17:18). A few minutes later, Officer Fawcett approached
the three of them. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 23:12; Govt. Ex. 3 at 17:30). Officer Fawcett informed
Defendant that he was going to be arrested for assault family-violence battery and read
Defendant the Miranda warnings. (Govt. Ex. 1 at 24:57–25:20). Defendant was arrested
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 7 of 12

8
approximately 23 minutes after he was first detained. (See generally Govt. Ex. 1).
Defendant waived his right to remain silent, agreed to speak with Officer Fawcett, and
consented to a search of the Ford F-150. (Id. at 25:20– 26:39).
DISCUSSION
The Fifth Amendment provides that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. To safeguard this
privilege against self-incrimination, a person must be warned prior to a custodial
interrogation that “he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used
against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that
if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he
so desires.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966) (Miranda warnings). “[T]he
Fourth 	Amendment 	does 	not 	[however,] 	prohibit 	a 	police 	officer, 	‘in 	appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner [from] approach[ing] a person for purposes of
investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make
an arrest[.]’” United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968)). Accordingly, officers are allowed to make what are
commonly called Terry4 stops, which are “justified to give the police an opportunity to
engage in brief and nonintrusive investigation techniques, such as noncustodial questioning
of the detained person.” United States v. Hardy, 855 F.2d 753, 759 (11th Cir. 1988). “No
brightline test separates an investigatory stop from an arrest.” United States v. Blackman,
66 F.3d 1572, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995). A Terry stop does not necessarily constitute custody
for purposes of Miranda even if the suspect is not free to leave. United States v. Shaw, No.
24-10266, 2025 WL 2718481 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2025); United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d
1141, 1148 (11th Cir. 2004). Importantly, pre-custodial questioning during a Terry stop
does not require Miranda warnings. United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298, 1309 (11th Cir.
2006).
4 	Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 8 of 12

9
Here, Defendant identifies several statements that he contends are subject to
suppression under the Fifth Amendment. (See Doc. 44 at 5–6). The Government counters
that, because Defendant’s statements were pre-custodial and made during a Terry stop, the
statements should not be suppressed. (Doc. 35 at 5; Doc. 45 at 2; Doc. 43 at 41:7–8).
Accordingly, 	the 	question 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	whether 	Defendant’s 	detention 	was
reasonable under Terry or if it had ripened into a full-scale arrest when the statements in
question were made. In evaluating the reasonableness of an investigatory stop, courts
consider the “totality of the circumstances, . . . including the law enforcement purposes
served by the detention, the diligence in which the police pursue[d] the investigation, the
scope and intrusiveness of the detention, and the duration of the detention.” United States
v. Gil, 204 F.3d 1347, 1351 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Officer Fawcett was called to the scene of an alleged domestic dispute in which the
purported complainant said that she had been pistol whipped. The complainant had a
visible bump on her head, was bleeding and accused Defendant of assaulting her. She was
agitated and yelling, and Defendant ignored commands to turn around. Officer Fawcett had
to threaten to tase Defendant before Defendant cooperated with instructions to turn around
despite being told multiple times, “I’m going to detain you until I know what’s going on.”
(Govt. Ex. 1 at 01:21–25). That Defendant was placed in handcuffs or that Officer Fawcett
drew his taser “does not, as a matter of course, transform [this] investigatory stop into an
arrest.” Blackman, 66 F.3d at 1576; see United States v. Kapperman, 764 F.2d 786, 790
n.4 (11th Cir. 1985) (handcuffing does not automatically convert an investigative detention
into an arrest and police may take reasonable action to protect themselves during
investigative detentions); United States v. Hastamorir, 881 F.2d 1551, 1557 (11th Cir.
1989) (same); Acosta, 363 F.3d at 1147 (citations omitted) (same).
When 	determining 	“whether 	the 	investigative 	detention 	of 	[Defendant] 	was
sufficiently limited in scope and duration to remain within the bounds permitted by Terry
v. Ohio and not ripen into a full-scale arrest unsupported by probable cause,” the Eleventh
Circuit said that “the most important factor is whether the police detained [the defendant]
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 9 of 12

10
to pursue a method of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions
quickly, and with a minimum of interference.” Hardy, 855 F.2d at 759 (citing United States
v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985)). The method of investigation here was to talk to the
complainant, Defendant, and the other two people present to determine what had happened
and then to look for the weapon once an independent witness confirmed the presence of
one. It took approximately 23 minutes from the time Defendant was initially detained to
complete the investigation. Five of those 23 minutes were spent waiting for a second officer
to arrive so that the 	investigation could 	proceed safely. The 	officers pursued the
investigation diligently and did not detain Defendant for any amount of time longer than
necessary to complete their investigation. See Gil, 204 F.3d at 1351. Additionally, the
scope and intrusiveness of the detention were reasonable. Even though Defendant was
handcuffed, (1) Officer Fawcett loosened 	the handcuffs, (2) both officers allowed
Defendant to walk around the driveway, (3) both officers gave Defendant his drink when
he asked for it, (4) Officer Fawcett looked for Defendant’s cigarettes at his request, and (4)
Officer Clark allowed Defendant to smoke a cigarette with Eric in the backyard.
Considering 	the 	totality 	of 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	Defendant’s 	detention,
Defendant’s detention did not exceed that allowed by Terry. Therefore, Officer Fawcett
and Officer Clark’s pre-custodial questioning did not require Miranda warnings. See Street,
472 F.3d at 1309.
Even if Defendant had been in custody rather than detained pursuant to Terry, the
Supreme Court has established a narrow exception to Miranda when a threat to public
safety exists. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 657–58 (1984). This exception allows
officers to question a suspect in custody without first Mirandizing him if it is necessary to
protect either themselves or the general public. Id. at 655–58. In Quarles, the Supreme
Court concluded that, because law enforcement was “confronted with the immediate
necessity of ascertaining the whereabouts of a gun[,]” the custodial interrogation was
permissible. Id. at 657. “[T]he need for answers to questions posing a threat to the public
safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s
privilege against self-incrimination.” Id.; see also United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 10 of 12

11
(11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Williams, 784 F. App’x 707 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
Williams is particularly instructive. In Williams, two officers were dispatched to a domestic
dispute where a weapon was present. 784 F. App’x at 710. There were multiple people at
the house, including the complainant. Id. When the complainant informed the officers that
there was a gun in the house, one of the officers immediately asked the defendant if he
knew where the gun was located—“[h]e did not ask [the defendant] if it was his gun, where
the gun came from, or how he obtained the gun, but only if he knew the gun’s location.”
Id. The Eleventh Circuit held that the officer’s “questions as to the location of the firearm
were proper to protect himself, his fellow officer, and the other individuals on the scene[.]”
Id. In this case, Officer Fawcett was responding to a domestic dispute, and the complainant
and a witness stated that Defendant had hit the complainant with a gun. Defendant denied
possessing a gun, and Officer Fawcett did not know where the gun was. Accordingly,
asking questions to determine if there was, in fact, a gun and where the gun was was
necessary to protect those present at the house as well as the officers; and the public safety
exception would apply.
Finally, Defendant made several statements without being asked a question.
“Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their
admissibility is not affected by [the holding in Miranda].” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478;
United States v. Cartwright, 183 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1357 (M.D. Ga. 2016). Unprompted
and unsolicited statements, spontaneously initiated by a defendant are neither protected by
the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, nor related in any manner to
Miranda warning questions. United States v. Espinosa-Orlando, 704 F.2d 507, 513-14
(11th Cir. 1983); see Cannady v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752, 754 (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly,
Defendant’s voluntary statements are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 11 of 12

12
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc.
28) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cr-00020-LAG-ALS Document 47 Filed 03/20/26 Page 12 of 12