In United States v. Mora-Alcaraz, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-10323 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court affirmed the district court's grant of Mr. Mora-Alcarez's motion to suppress his statements and remanded for further proceedings on his motion to suppress a gun.
This case comes by way of government interlocutory appeal. As a threshold issue, the Court confirmed the longstanding rule that a government appeal from an order suppressing evidence is timely if the notice is filed within thirty days of the district court’s denial of the government’s motion for reconsideration.
As to the merits, the Court held the district court correctly suppressed incriminating statements made after the armed police officers met Mr. Mora-Alcarez in two marked vehicles, separated him from his son, and interrogated him without reading him Miranda warnings. The Court explained, "No physical restraint of Mora-Alcaraz was necessary so long as the police kept him separated from his son. He could not leave."
As to the gun, the Court explained that suppression of physical evidence does not necessarily follow from a Miranda violation. Instead, the question is whether "the consent to the search of the trunk was voluntary." "The proper analysis, however, looks to all the circumstances, including: '(1) whether defendant was in custody; (2) whether the arresting officers have their guns drawn; (3) whether Miranda warnings have been given; (4) whether the defendant was told he has a right not to consent; and (5) whether defendant was told a search warrant could be obtained.'"
The Court thus remanded "for the district court to determine whether Mora-Alcaraz’s consent to the search of the truck was voluntary."
