Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Anglin, 438 F.3d 1229, 10th Cir. (2006)
United States v. Anglin, 438 F.3d 1229, 10th Cir. (2006)
PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
Defendants - Appellants.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause therefore
is ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
-3-
Defendants, the officer determined that the buckets and satchels contained
ginseng, a forest product. Defendants admit that they did not have permits for
extraction. Nevertheless, they argue that because the officer did not actually
observe them digging the ginseng up while in the National Forest, they cannot be
found guilty of violation 36 C.F.R. 261.6(h). This argument lacks merit. The
governments evidence direct and circumstantial was clearly sufficient to
support the verdict. Although the Defendants argue that the officer lied (at least
concerning the statement of probable cause), this involves a credibility dispute
that upon appellate review is resolved in favor of the government.
The Defendants argue that the officer was required to advise them of their
rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), prior to asking what they
were carrying or searching their persons, buckets, and satchels. The government
admits that no Miranda warnings were given by the officer at the scene, but that is
of no matter as a reasonable person in the Defendants position would not have
believed he was in police custody or subject to a formal arrest. See United States
v. Unser, 165 F.3d 755, 766 (10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Defendants were not
in custody for Miranda purposes when the USFS officer approached them, and
thus no warnings were required. It is of no moment that the officer testified at
trial that the Defendants were under arrest and not free to leave. Trial Tr. at 23.
Whether someone is in custody is an objective determination based upon what a
-4-
reasonable person would sense. United States v. Rogers, 391 F.3d 1165, 1170
(10th Cir. 2004). The district courts determination that the stop, detention and
investigation of the Defendants did not violate their constitutional rights is amply
supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
-5-