United States v. Dussault ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1257
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DENNIS L. DUSSAULT,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Edward F. St.Onge on brief for appellant.
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Andrew J. Reich,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 30, 1997
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the submissions by the
parties and the record in this case, and we affirm the
judgment of conviction. Appellant Dennis Dussault
("Dussault") contends statements he made to an ATF agent
should not have been admitted into evidence, because 1) he
was never warned of his constitutional rights pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and 2) his counsel
was not present while he made the statements in question.
Neither argument has merit. Miranda applies only when a
suspect is subjected to a "custodial interrogation." United
States v. Ventura, 85 F.3d 708, 710 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990)). Under no
version of the facts could the exchange between Dussault and
the ATF agent be characterized as an "interrogation." For
the same reason, counsel's absence during the initial
exchange between Dussault and the agent did not violate
Dussault's constitutional rights. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462
U.S. 1039, 1044-45 (1983) (counsel's absence during
interrogation violates suspect's constitutional rights if
suspect has not knowingly and intelligently waived right to
counsel); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286
(1991); 18 U.S.C. 3501(d).
Dussault's remaining points on appeal are waived due to
the failure to fully brief those issues. United States v.
Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 621 (1st Cir. 1994).
-2-
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
-3-