United States v. Banks

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31205
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ENOCH DAN BANKS, IV.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-148-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Enoch Dan Banks, IV, appeals his conditional guilty plea
conviction for felon possession of a firearm. He challenges the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress a statement to
the police revealing the location of a firearm in his
girlfriend’s apartment and the resulting seizure of that firearm.
This court reviews a ruling on a motion to suppress based upon
live testimony under the “clearly erroneous” standard for
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-31205
-2-
findings of fact and de novo for questions of law. United States
v. Muniz-Melchor, 894 F.2d 1430, 1433-34 (5th Cir. 1990).
We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion,
and the parties’ briefs, and conclude that the district court did
not clearly err in finding that the colloquy in which Banks
admitted having a firearm did not constitute a custodial
interrogation by the deputies in question. See Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966); see United States v. Baldwin,
644 F.2d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Carpenter,
611 F.2d 113, 117 (5th Cir. 1980). We also conclude that, even
if the colloquy did constitute a custodial interrogation, the
resulting seizure of the firearm and Banks’s second and third
statements claiming ownership of the firearm were nevertheless
admissible. See United States v. Patane, 124 S. Ct. 2620, 2630
(2004); Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 310-11 (1985)). The
district court’s denial of Banks’s motion to suppress is
therefore AFFIRMED.