UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
May 3, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CORNELIUS C. MITCHELL, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY U.S. District Judge
Thursday, 03 May, 2012 09:47:52 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This case is before the court for ruling on Defendant's pro se Motion to Reconsider (#38) this court's rulings on Defendant's Motions to Suppress (#18; #28). This court has carefully reviewed the Defendant's arguments. Following this careful and thorough review, Defendant's pro se Motion to Reconsider (#38) is DENIED.
In this case, Defendant previously filed a Motion to Suppress Alleged Confession (#18) and a Motion to Suppress Traffic Stop and the Fruits Thereof (#28). For both of these prior Motions (#18; #28), this court held evidentiary hearings. This court issued Opinions (#25; #33) denying Defendant's prior Motions to Suppress (#18; #28). In the Opinion (#33) denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Traffic Stop (#28), this court held that there was clearly probable cause for Defendant's arrest and rejected Defendant's argument that the one-month delay between the controlled buy and his arrest rendered the probable cause stale. Defendant, in his Motion to Reconsider (#38), has advanced the same argument based on the one-month delay between the controlled buy and his arrest. This argument lacks merit and this court will not reconsider its prior Opinion (#33).
In the Opinion (#25) denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Alleged Confession (#18), this court held that Defendant's partial written statement was admissible because although Defendant invoked his right to an attorney after receiving a verbal Miranda warning, under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant's initiation of the conversation and subsequent waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. Defendant, in his Motion to Reconsider (#38), does not offer any argument which would affect this court's prior conclusion that Defendant's initiation of the conversation and subsequent waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. Instead, Defendant advances a novel theory, without any case support, that the failure to give a Miranda warning to Defendant at the scene of the traffic stop, prior to the arrival at his residence violated Miranda because his residence, where illegal drugs were found, was an "incriminating environment." Defendant's argument is premised on a belief that if there was a violation of Miranda, any subsequent statements must be inadmissible-a premise that is incorrect. See e.g., Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985). Here, Defendant was given Miranda warnings prior to the incriminating statements at issue, therefore any failure to give Defendant Miranda warnings earlier in the arrest is legally irrelevant to the statements he eventually made. Therefore, because Defendant's argument lacks merit, this court will not reconsider its prior Opinion (#25).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (#38) is DENIED.
Michael P. McCuskey
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.