UNITED STATES v. KING (2024)

ORDER

I. Background

A. Underlying Indictment and Motion

In August 2023, the Government indicted Defendants Kenneth Paul King and Jeremy Lynn Bunch for murder in connection with the death of Brian Bennett at USP McCreary on March 6, 2021. See DE 1 (Indictment). King subsequently moved to suppress certain statements he allegedly made during an interview about Bennett's murder, the day of the charged incident, with prison officials at USP McCreary. See DE 84 (Motion). The Government filed its response, see DE 87 (Response), and King replied, see DE 89 (Reply). The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 21, 2024, and heard argument from both parties. See DE 96 (Minute Entry). The matter is ripe for review.

B. The Hearing

At the November 21, 2024 hearing, King testified on behalf of himself and Lieutenant Randall Asher testified on behalf of the Government. Both were subject to cross-examination and examination by the Court. The testimony was largely consistent between the two witnesses:

At the time of Bennett's killing on March 6, 2021, King was a fellow inmate at USP McCreary as part of its general population. See Tr. (DE 98) 10:19–21, 11:1–8. While inmates in the general population were typically not restricted to their cells and were free to move around the assigned Unit's common area, movement was somewhat limited in March 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See id. at 12:1–24. After the Bennett attack, officials put the facility on lockdown, meaning that inmates could not leave their cells. See id. at 32:13–20. Consequently, inmates could only be outside of their cells for a “specific purpose,” with authorization from a lieutenant. See id. at 67:4–15.

Later on March 6, 2021, at the direction of Lt. Asher, two compound officers ordered King to exit his cell and handcuffed him behind his back through the meal slot in his cell door. See id. at 14:7–24, 15:7–13, 48:19–23. According to Asher, King was not free to decline this order, and the purpose of the order was to question King about Bennett's murder and then place him into the Special Housing Unit (SHU). See id. at 49:1–3, 53:12–18. Asher testified that King was not initially a suspect, and the order was intended to facilitate “intelligence gathering.” See id. at 61:7–21. However, a subsequent report prepared after the interview described King as a suspect. See id. at 62:3–22, 68:10–20.

The officers stood on either side of King and escorted him to the lieutenant's office, wrapping their hands around his arms. See id. at 16:9–17:8. During the escort, King was not told that he was free to return to his cell. See id. at 17:9–12. King remained handcuffed for the duration of the escort, as is standard when an inmate is outside of his cell while in lockdown. See id. at 17:9–12, 20:9–23, 43:11–20, 47:20–21.

While Asher could not recall how many other officers were present in the lieutenant's office, King testified that three officers were inside, and he named them: Asher, Lieutenant Mullins, and Special Investigation Agent (SIA) Thompson. See id. at 18:12–15, 19:1–10, 45:22–24. All three officers were affiliated with the SIS, the investigatory unit within the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). See id. at 18:16–18:23, 19:1–10, 19:24–20:2. Asher was the lieutenant of the investigators. See id. at 18:16–18:23. Thompson was the head of SIS, holding the highest rank as the SIA. See id. at 19:1–10. The SIS maintains the power to charge inmates with institutional violations, which may result in an inmate losing good time credit and consequently serving a longer sentence. See id. at 25:5–23. The SIS may also refer criminal charges to law enforcement outside of the prison. See id. at 26:3–10.

Upon arrival to the lieutenant's office, King was seated in a chair (in the internal Admin Lt.’s office) in front of a desk, opposite the three SIS officers. See id. at 17:17–22, 39:21–40:3. Before the interview began, the two escorting officers exited the office, shut the door, and stood directly outside the door. See id. at 17:24–18:5. The office was roughly six feet by ten feet in size. See id. at 45:19–21. Asher and Mullins were in uniform. See id. at 19:11–20:8. King was handcuffed behind his back for the entirety of the interview. See id. at 20:9–23, 47:20–21. King testified that he was never handcuffed during his few previous visits to the lieutenant's office, though this was the first time he was there under lockdown. See id. at 41:11–42:10, 43:11–13.

In the interview, the officers asked King if he was the “spokesperson for the Independent Whites,” and King purportedly confirmed. See id. at 46:5–9. The officers then asked King about Bennett's murder, and King refused to comment. See id. at 22:1–11, 46:10–14. King repeatedly stated “no comment,” becoming agitated. See id. at 59:13–60:14. In response, the officers did not threaten, curse, or yell at King, but instead, ceased questioning. See id. at 46:18–23, 60:11–14. In total, the interview lasted less than four minutes. See id. at 46:24–47:2. Throughout the course of the interview, the officers never told King that he was free to leave and return to his cell. See id. at 24:14–17. Nor did the officers read King his rights, provide him with a document of his rights, or otherwise advise him regarding his rights. See id. at 24:6–13, 48:3–4. The interview (unlike one on the same date with the co-defendant, who did get a rights notice) was not recorded. See id. at 60:15–18.

At the conclusion of the interview, officers informed King that he was going to the SHU. See id. at 40:24–41:6, 66:13–21. The SHU is the highly secure unit within the prison, featuring nearly a 24-hour cell restriction. Asher testified that no matter what King stated during the interview, he was being placed into the SHU after. See id. at 47:17–19. Asher explained that this was because King was the spokesperson for the Independent Whites, and the murder was the first homicide involving that group. See id. at 70:13–21. According to Asher, officers sent King to the SHU so that they could engage in additional “intelligence gathering” such as searching King's cell, property, emails, and phone calls. See id. at 71:1–7. The “intelligence gathering” was necessary since Bunch (Bennett's identified assailant) stared at King during the assault. See id. at 61:5–6, 71:11–14. Asher was resistant to agreeing that he viewed King as a suspect during the time. Hair splitting aside, there is no doubt King was the subject of investigation regarding Bennett's murder.

The two compound officers escorted King to the SHU, again with one on either side of him. See id. 29:15–25. King was not allowed to return to his cell to gather any personal belongings. See id. at 26:11–23, 27:3–14. Save a momentary uncuffing to allow King to change into SHU clothes, King was continuously handcuffed until he was placed into his actual SHU cell. See id. at 30:1–16. King described the SHU as “like a jail ․ actually worse than a jail.” See id. at 26:17–27:2. He further testified that inmates in the SHU are not allowed personal belongings, and the individual cells only contain a modest supply of soap and toilet paper. See id. 27:3–14. In the SHU, inmates are allowed outside of their cells for only an hour per day for recreation, which occurs in an enclosed cage. See id. at 27:21–28:6. Unlike the general population common area, the recreation cage contains no televisions, phones, computers, ice, or hot water. See id. at 28:17–29:14. King never returned to his previous home cell in general population, and he remained in the SHU for seven to eight months. See id. at 30:17–25.

II. Analysis

The Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause guarantees an individual the right not to “be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. To protect this right, law enforcement must provide an individual subject to custodial interrogation with certain requisite warnings:

that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1630 (1966). Absent these warnings, any statement obtained during custodial interrogation is inadmissible at trial as part of the Government's case-in-chief. See id. (“[U]nless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.”); see also United States v. Patane, 124 S. Ct. 2620, 2627 (2004) (“The Miranda rule creates a presumption of coercion, in the absence of specific warnings, that is generally irrebuttable for purposes of the prosecution's case in chief.”). The party seeking suppression based on the failure to give Miranda warnings bears the burden of establishing custodial interrogation. See United States v. Lawrence, 892 F.2d 80 (Table), 1989 WL 153161, at *5 (6th Cir. 1989).

The parties do not dispute that the officers interrogated King in the lieutenant's office on March 6, 2021. See generally DE 84; DE 87. The Government also concedes that the officers never provided King with Miranda warnings. See DE 87 at 1. The key question, therefore, is whether King was in “custody” for purposes of Miranda at the time of the interrogation.

“ ‘[C]ustody’ is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion.” Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 1189 (2012). An individual is in custody if a “reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” See id. (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). This requires an objective inquiry, examining the totality of the circumstances. See id. But “[e]ven if a reasonable person in a suspect's position would not have felt free to leave, the suspect is not in custody unless ‘the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda.’ ” United States v. Howard, 815 F. App'x 69, 79 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1189–90).

In the prison context, a prisoner is not automatically in custody when removed from the general population for interrogation. This was the essence of Howes. See Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1187–90 (“[I]mprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda.”). The Supreme Court declined to adopt a categorical rule for the interrogation of prisoners, who face inherent freedom of movement limits, for three primary reasons: 1) “[Q]uestioning a person who is already serving a prison term does not generally involve the shock that very often accompanies arrest;” 2) “[A] prisoner, unlike a person who has not been sentenced to a term of incarceration, is unlikely to be lured into speaking by a longing for prompt release;” and 3) “[A] prisoner, unlike a person who has not been convicted and sentenced, knows that the law enforcement officers who question him probably lack the authority to affect the duration of his sentence.” Id. at 1190–91. Instead, courts must consider the following factors to determine if a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and return to his cell, in light of the ordinary restraints, procedures, and environment expected in a prison: 1) the location of the questioning, 2) its duration, 3) statements (e.g., assuring the right to end the interview and leave) made during the interview, 4) the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and 5) the release, or not, of the interviewee at the end of the questioning. See id. at 1189; see also Simpson v. Warden, Warren Corr. Inst., 651 F. App'x 344, 355 (6th Cir. 2016) (habeas case applying factors from Howes in similar prison context). Courts should also examine “the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted.” Id. at 1192. However, “this list is not exhaustive, and no single factor is determinative.” United States v. Martinez, 795 F. App'x 367, 371 (6th Cir. 2019).

Altogether, the circumstances show that a reasonable person in King's position would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation in the lieutenant's office and return to his cell. Nearly all factors weigh in favor of finding King was in custody. The Court concludes that King has established, through a preponderance of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and upon consideration of all interrogation features, that he was subject to custodial interrogation under Miranda.

First, the location of the interrogation indicates King was in custody. The interrogation occurred in the admin lieutenant's office, i.e., in the office of someone in a position of authority. Three officers ¹ sat opposite King at a table inside a small room, only six feet by ten feet in size. The door to the office was closed, with two officers guarding the door from the outside. The officials were all, in King's factual perception, highly ranked officers serving in the BOP's investigatory unit. A reasonable person in these circumstances—questioned by authorities of this status on their home turf, sandwiched between officers on either side of him, and sitting in a confined space with a high concentration of law enforcement personnel—would not feel free to terminate the interaction and exit the encounter. See United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the defendant was in custody when he was interrogated in a back room with a closed door and a detective blocking the door).

Similarly, how the officers conducted King's interrogation in the lieutenant's office also supports a finding of custody. King was removed from his cell during lockdown, which requires special authorization from a lieutenant. He was interviewed by three lieutenants within the SIS, again, the investigatory branch of the BOP. Those lieutenants are capable of imposing institutional violations (which can yield credit-forfeiting effects) and referring criminal matters to outside law enforcement. Two of the lieutenants held leadership positions within the SIS; Asher presided over other investigators with Thompson as the head of the SIS. Asher and Mullins were in uniform. The formalized nature of the interrogation (the timing and the individuals involved) added to its coercive character.

During the hearing, much attention focused on whether Asher and the other officers considered King a suspect during the interrogation. “[A]n officer's ․ beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned” is one factor that may “bear upon the assessment [of] whether that individual was in custody, but only if the officer's [ ] beliefs were somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave.” Stansbury v. California, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 1530 (1994). The evidence implies that, before the interrogation even occurred, authorities considered King a suspect. Whether the officers were questioning King as a suspect versus engaging in “intelligence gathering” is mere semantics. According to Asher, the purpose of summoning King from his cell was to question him about Bennett's murder and then put him into the SHU. King became a focus because Bunch (Bennett's assailant) stared at King during the assault, establishing that the officers viewed King as having suspected or potential involvement in the murder. Placement into the SHU is objectively punitive—King described the SHU as a “jail” within the prison but “worse.” Inmates in the SHU are not allowed their personal belongings, are rarely let outside of their cells, and unlike those in the general population, are not afforded access to televisions, phones, computers, or even ice or hot water. Asher testified that no matter the outcome of the interrogation, King was going to be placed into the SHU. It is difficult to discern any other plausible reason for King's placement into the SHU, other than that the officers believed that he was a suspect in Bennett's murder. To the extent that the Government points to testimony that King's transfer to the SHU was necessary to search his emails, phone calls, cell, and other property, those searches are consistent with an individual's designation as a suspect. In any event, King was held in the SHU for seven to eight months, well beyond the time necessary to conduct such searches. Moreover, mere days after the interrogation, an investigative report described King as a suspect.

The officers’ view of King as a suspect in Bennett's murder perceptibly manifested in how the officers treated King during his interrogation. He was ordered out of his cell for an interview in the midst of a lockdown, something that in itself required special approval. He was flanked by officers during his escort to the lieutenant's office and was handcuffed behind his back throughout the entire interaction. In all, the interrogation involved five different officers. Two guarded the door, while the other three were present for the questioning. The three officers inside were investigators for the BOP. And, after King reportedly confirmed that he was the spokesperson for the Independent Whites, the officers then asked him about Bennett's murder. The short interaction was long enough for King to develop agitation and to repeatedly state he had no comment on the Bennett attack. All of these circumstances objectively contributed to the custodial atmosphere of the interrogation.

The statements made, or, more accurately, the lack of statements made, are also suggestive of custody. As Asher testified, when summoned to the lieutenant's office for questioning, the compound officers ordered King to exit his cell, and he was not free to decline that order. From his initial escort to the lieutenant's office through the duration of the interrogation and his final escort to the SHU, King was never told he was free to end the encounter, leave, and return to his cell. Slightly undermining the custodial atmosphere, the officers never yelled, cursed, or threatened King. Further, they stopped their questioning promptly. However, whether officers told a subject that he was free to leave is the single most important factor in the custody analysis. See Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1193. Here, King never got that assurance or anything approaching it.

Relatedly, King repeatedly answered “no comment” when asked about Bennett's murder, becoming increasingly agitated. A suspect's statements are “not directly relevant to whether he was in Miranda custody, but these statements can be evidence of how a reasonable person would have perceived the situation,” including the “overall atmosphere of the entire interaction.” Martinez, 795 F. App'x at 372, 375 (quotation marks omitted). That King responded “no comment” multiple times insinuates that he perceived, as a reasonable person would, that he could not simply and immediately end the interview of his own volition, indicative of a coercive environment.

The details of King's physical restraints were also inarguably custodial. Two officers escorted him to the lieutenant's office, walking on either side of him with their hands wrapped around his arms, hampering any movement by King. He was handcuffed for the duration of the interrogation and during his escorts to and from the lieutenant's office. “Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive in favor of finding custody, it is an important factor.” United States v. Sydnor, No. 6:16-CR-21-ART-HAI-2, 2016 WL 8672913, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 9, 2016) (Ingram, Mag. J.), report and recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 772341 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2017). Further constraining King's movement, his arms were handcuffed behind his back rather than in front of his person. See Sydnor, 2016 WL 8672913, at *7 (explaining that the defendant was in custody when he “was initially handcuffed on the floor with his hands behind his back” and “constantly physically restrained”). The arms-behind restraint is an especially vulnerable position. This, maintained by those in charge despite having King in a small room with five total officers involved, strongly signals the type of impactful coercion at which Miranda aims.

And while standard protocol may have dictated that inmates be handcuffed when moving outside of their cells during a lockdown, no evidence indicates that inmates were to be handcuffed behind their backs or to remain handcuffed once they reached their final destination. Cf. Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1192 (“Escorts and special security precautions may be standard procedures regardless of the purpose for which an inmate is removed from his regular routine and taken to a special location.”). Indeed, King testified that inmates are not handcuffed in their cells during a lockdown and that he was never handcuffed during his previous visits to the lieutenant's office. Given the deviation from the status quo and despite the restrictions common to a prison, a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave when handcuffed throughout the entire interaction, from start to finish. Critically, the removal to question here, itself, was a dramatic shift in status. The lockdown kept all inmates locked in (but not otherwise restrained in) their cells. Movement out occurred only for a special purpose under lieutenant authority. That happened here particularly to a) question King about Bennett and then b) place King in the heightened restrictions of the SHU. At the time, the entire facility's status, and King's individual treatment, turned on the Bennett attack and the entity's response to it. While USP McCreary might have had standard rules for movement and security in such circumstances, King's selection and handling were, by definition as to him (an inmate removed for questioning about the crime and then relocation to the SHU) non-standard. The sequence and nature were, as objective matters, characteristically coercive.

The fact that King was assigned to the SHU after the interview is also consistent with a finding of custody. Although consideration of King's transfer to the SHU requires a backward-looking, post hoc assessment of the interrogation, his placement is still evidence of the atmosphere of the interrogation, especially valuable in this case since the interview was not recorded. Officers did not communicate to King that he was moving to the SHU until the conclusion of the interview, but Asher testified that King would have been reassigned to the SHU regardless of interview outcome. As previously discussed, placement into the SHU is punitive. Knowing that King inevitably would be placed in the SHU surely colored the tenor of the interview. Asher's dodgy approach on his SHU intent that day, compare Tr. at 53 and 70, evolving from certainty to a hedge, casts an important light on how to view disputed hearing parts, like King's agitation during the interview. The specter of the SHU is indicative, in the Court's view, of the interrogation's overall tone.

Finally, while the interrogation only lasted four minutes, its short duration is not dispositive. See Martinez, 795 F. App'x at 371. This is particularly the case here, where all other factors counsel plainly in favor of a finding of custody. See United States v. Mattox, 3:17-CR-008, 2018 WL 3622777, at *5 (M.D. Pa. July 30, 2018) (holding that the defendant was in custody despite the interrogation lasting only a few minutes where he was escorted to a disciplinary unit following the interrogation, he was restrained during the entirety of the interrogation, and law enforcement never informed him that he was free to decline to answer questions).

In totality, King's interrogation had the typical coercive markers of a stationhouse questioning. He was interviewed by three investigatory officers in a small room with the door shut and officers guarding the door from the outside. He was handcuffed behind his back for the duration of the interrogation. He was never told that he was free to terminate the interaction and return to his cell. And, in fact, far from a release in the end, he was taken to the SHU directly following the interview. That, of course, was the plan all along. Accordingly, the Court finds that King was in custody. Cf. Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1186, 1192–93 (finding a prisoner was not in custody where he was told multiple times he was free to leave, he was not physically restrained, and the interview occurred in an average-sized conference room with the door often open). Because the parties agree that King was subject to interrogation and that Miranda warnings were never given, any statements made by King (including the claimed confirmation that he is the spokesperson for the Independent Whites) in the March 6, 2021 interview are inadmissible in the Government's case-in-chief at trial. The Court therefore grants King's motion to suppress.

One final note: the standard justifications in Howes for rejection of a per se rule regarding a prisoner's custodial status are not as salient in King's case. The questioning of King occurred in circumstances that would be shocking to a prisoner. He was ordered out of his cell during a prison-wide lockdown and summoned for an interview with BOP investigators concerning a murder.² Inmates were only allowed outside of their cells during a lockdown for special and authorized purposes. The officers involved also maintained the authority to affect the duration of King's sentence. As investigators for the SIS, the officers could punish King for his alleged role in the assault by levying institutional violations with the potential to take away good time credit, effectively lengthening his sentence. The officers could also refer criminal charges to outside law enforcement, also creating the potential for a longer sentence. And, while there was no possibility that King would be promptly released after the interview due to his incarcerated status, the interrogation (and the potential for subsequent murder charges) could impact his ultimate release date for the same reasons. Therefore, the standard Howes justifications do not cleanly apply to King's circumstances. Instead, given the circumstances and interrogation features, his interrogation was more akin to the types of coercive questioning that Miranda is designed to address. Simply put, King, isolated, bound, highly outnumbered, and powerless to unilaterally end or avoid the encounter, was in custody when questioned.

III. Conclusion

For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS DE 84.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Asher, gauzy on many details, could not recall whether one or two other officers were in the room with him. King plainly recalled the presence of three officers and specifically identified and described the officers. Given his clear, emphatic assertions, the Court credits the testimony of King as to the number of officers present.

2.   This seems a coercive parallel to the “sharp and ominous change” a person “yanked from familiar surroundings” for police questioning in the outside world would experience. See Howes, 132 S. Ct. at 1190–91.

Robert E. Wier, United States District Judge