PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4344 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ISMAEL AZUA-RINCONADA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:16-cr-00005-FL-1) Argued: September 28, 2018 Decided: January 28, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and Norman K. MOON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Keenan and Judge Moon joined. Judge Keenan wrote a separate opinion, concurring. ARGUED: Anne Margaret Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer, P. May- Parker, Acting First Assistant United States Attorney, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: After Ismael Azua-Rinconada (“Azua”) was indicted for illegally entering the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), he filed two motions to suppress all statements and all other evidence obtained by law enforcement officers during their encounter with him prior to his arrest. He alleged that the officers, acting without a warrant, gained access to his residence through coercion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that they then subjected him to custodial interrogation without providing him with Miranda warnings, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motions, concluding that the officers received voluntary consent to enter Azua’s residence and that Azua was not in custody when he voluntarily gave answers to the officers’ questions. A jury then found Azua guilty of violating § 1326(a), and the court sentenced him to time served and committed him to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security for deportation. On appeal, Azua contends that the district court erred in denying his suppression motions because (1) the law enforcement officers did not have valid consent to enter his residence and thus needed a warrant, and (2) the officers’ interrogation of him was custodial and thus violated his Fifth Amendment rights because no Miranda warnings had been given. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. I On the morning of January 6, 2016, a team of six law enforcement officers working with Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) set out on a “knock and talk” 2 operation in a mobile home park in Robeson County, North Carolina. The team was led by HSI Special Agent Bryan Moultis and included Corporal José Hernandez, a detective in the Hoke County Sheriff’s Office who spoke Spanish. At approximately 9:30 a.m., Agent Moultis and Corporal Hernandez approached the trailer that was Azua’s residence to conduct a “knock and talk.” At the time, Moultis was wearing a shirt with “police” written across the chest, was carrying a holstered firearm, and had his badge around his neck. Hernandez ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals