United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER MOTION TO SUPPRESS [ECF NO. 106]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Rudy Redmond's Motion to Suppress.
(ECF No. 106). For the reasons discussed below,
Defendant's motion is denied.
faces charges arising from the robbery of EZ Pawn stores by a
group of suspects. (ECF No. 73). Defendant was arrested and
interrogated on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 106 at 2). After
being read his Miranda rights, Defendant gave
several statements incriminating himself and others in the
robberies. (ECF No. 91 at 14-62).
March 5, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the
statements he made to detectives on October 7, 2016. (ECF No.
106). Redmond argues that he did not voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently waive his right to remain silent because
(1) he “had taken Xanax and an unknown pain
killerabout an hour before he was arrested and
gave this statement, ” (2) he was “feeling dizzy,
and light headed because of the officers repeated punching
him and pushing his head into the ground during his arrest,
” and (3) “the detectives coerced Redmond into a
confession by threats of maximum prison time.” (ECF No.
106 at 2-3, 7). In response, the Government argues that
Defendant was not intoxicated or deliberately injured when he
waived his Miranda rights and detectives did not
coerce Defendant into confessing. (ECF No. 112 at 5-8).
Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 10, 2018. (ECF No.
124). Officer Ivins testified that in the process of being
taken into custody, Defendant ran from police in a
residential area and fell to the ground twice. The second
time he fell, officers were able to hold him down and place
him in handcuffs, though Defendant was still struggling.
Officer Ivins did not see any officers hit, punch, or kick
Defendant. Defendant had injuries on his face after his
arrest, and officers summoned medical services to treat
Defendant. Detectives Beveridge and Condratovich
testified about their interrogation of Defendant. They
testified that Defendant gave no impression of being
intoxicated during the interview, because he was articulate
and lucid in answering the detective's questions.
testified that he took a Xanax at approximately 11:00 am on
October 7, 2016 and he was arrested around noon that day. He
was able to clearly remember his arrest. Defendant testified
that he fell once while running from police, saw that he was
surrounded, and then voluntarily surrendered to police by
getting down on the ground, placing his hands behind his
back, and crossing his ankles. Defendant stated that four or
five officers punched and kicked him 15-20 times and pushed
his face into the ground. Defendant was able to remember
telling paramedics that that he was in pain and had been
beaten by the officers, though there is no report to support
this. Defendant was able to remember being at the scene of
his arrest for hours before being taken to the interrogation,
which took place starting at 6:45 pm. Defendant was not able
to remember anything that took place during the interrogation
because of the Xanax he had taken earlier that day.
parties submitted three items into evidence. The first
exhibit was Defendant's booking photograph. (ECF No. 125
at 2). It shows scrapes on Defendant's chin and cheek and
bruising on his forehead. (Id.). The second exhibit
was an audio recording of Defendant's interrogation.
(Id. at 1). It was not played during the hearing,
but the Court listened to it prior to issuing this Order. The
Court noted that the Detectives' tone throughout the
interrogation was not threatening and Defendant's manner
during the interrogation was practically identical to his
manner while testifying at the April 10, 2018 hearing. The
third exhibit was a written transcript of Defendant's
interrogation. (ECF No. 126, previously submitted in ECF No.
91). Defendant drew attention to several comments made during
the interrogation. Defendant stated, “When I'm
barred out, like the night I got arrested. I-I black out. And
I don't remember nothing.” (ECF No. 91 at 28).
Detectives talked to Defendant about the punishment he could
face if convicted and the potential benefits of telling the
truth to help the investigation. (Id. at 20, 23-25,
32, 49-50, 68-70). Detective Beveridge stated at one point
that if Defendant lied, Detective Beveridge is “ready
to throw you to the wolves.” (Id. at 23).
Defendant did not mention to the Detectives that any violence
took place during his arrest.
waiver of Miranda rights must be “made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). “A waiver is
voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, the
confession was the product of a free and deliberate choice
rather than coercion or improper inducement.”
United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.
1998). “There is a presumption against waiver, and the
burden of showing a valid waiver is on the prosecutor.”
United States v. Bernard S., 795 F.2d 749, 752 (9th
Cir. 1986). “Whenever the State bears the burden of
proof in a motion to suppress a statement that the defendant
claims was obtained in violation of our Miranda
doctrine, the State need prove waiver only by a preponderance
of the evidence.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479
U.S. 157, 168 (1986).
Defendant's Alleged Intoxication
individual's intoxication is relevant to determining
whether statements made to police are admissible. Gladden
v. Unsworth, 396 F.2d 373, 380 (9th Cir. 1968) (stating
that if an individual “was in a drunken stupor
approaching mania, ” “the error in admitting the
testimony concerning those statements was so gross and so
prejudicial as to amount to denial of due process”);
United States v. Guaydacan, 470 F.2d 1173, 1174 (9th
Cir. 1972). The intoxication must be such that the individual
was “incapable of waiving his Miranda
rights.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d
874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997).
Court finds that Defendant was not intoxicated during the
interrogation to a degree that would affect his ability to
waive his Miranda rights. Detectives Beveridge and
Condratovich testified credibly that Defendant was lucid
throughout the interrogation and was able to answer questions
in a linear manner. This matches the Court's impression
of the interrogation's audio recording. Defendant acted
consistently during the interrogation with how he acted
during the April 10, 2018 hearing. In addition, the Court
finds that Defendant did not communicate to Detectives that
he had taken a Xanax that day. Defendant mentioned being
addicted to Xanax (ECF No. 91 at 24, 28, 64, 70-71), but not
taking one earlier that day. While Defendant referenced
blacking out from intoxication “like the night I got
arrested” (ECF No. 91 at 28), this comment could not
have applied to his October 7, 2016 arrest. Defendant was
arrested around noon. The Court finds that Defendant was
referencing an earlier arrest. (Id. at 14).
Court does not find Defendant's testimony on this issue
credible. Defendant stated he took a Xanax before the robbery
and was able to remember the events of the day until the
interrogation. Defendant was able to recall very specific
details regarding his arrest, including the exact position he
took to voluntarily surrender to police, the number of
officers, and times that the officers allegedly punched and
kicked him. Defendant was able to remember speaking to the
paramedics and remaining at the crime scene for several
hours. Defendant's claimed memory loss only appears to