Opinion
CR24-0085-JCC
07-12-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BREANNA R. MISTLER, Defendant.
ORDER
John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to suppress (Dkt. No. 30). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES it in part for the reasons explained herein.
Defendant is charged with assault on an airplane, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4) and 49 U.S.C. § 46506(1). (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 2, 18 at 1-2.) She moves to suppress statements made to law enforcement while being escorted from the airplane arrival gate to airport customs, where she was later arrested. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1-2.) Defendant argues that she was not properly Mirandized prior to making these statements. (Id. at 8.)
See Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966).
It is uncontested that Defendant was in a custodial setting when she made these statements, and the Government indicates that it does not seek to introduce these statements at trial. (Dkt. Nos. 30 at 8, 31 at 3.) However, the Government contends they are admissible for impeachment purposes at trial. (Dkt. No. 31 at 4.) The Court agrees. Indeed, courts permit counsel to use “‘incriminating yet voluntary and reliable statements elicited in violation of Miranda requirements'” for the purpose of impeaching defendants' own testimony at trial. United States v. Rosales-Aguilar, 818 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 311-12 (1990)). However, any use of a defendant's involuntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda is not permitted. Bradford v. Davis, 923 F.3d 599, 615 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 397-98 (1978)). Here, Defendant does not contest that the statements she moves to suppress were voluntary, and nothing in the record suggests otherwise. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 18, 30, 31.)
Accordingly, Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Government may introduce these statements at trial, for the limited purpose of impeaching Defendant if she chooses to testify on her own behalf-but not for its case-in-chief.