United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
William E. Smith Chief Judge
the Court is Defendant David L. Evans's Motion to
Suppress, ECF No. 31. After careful consideration of the
evidence, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
prosecution alleges that on May 31, 2018, a lone male robbed
the Santander Bank located at 551 North Main Street,
Providence, Rhode Island. Government's Mem. in Resp. to
Def.'s Mot. to Suppress 1 (“Govt's
Mem.”), ECF No. 39-1. Following the incident, the lead
investigators on the case, FBI Special Agent Medeiros and FBI
Task Force Officer Bernard Gannon, focused on Evans as a
suspect in the robbery. Id. at 2.
6, 2018, Evans was being treated at Rhode Island Hospital for
the injuries he suffered in a car accident. Id. At
approximately 3 p.m., the agents approached Evans in his
hospital room with the purpose of obtaining a statement from
him. Def.'s Mot. to Suppress 1, (“Def.'s
Mot.”), ECF No. 31. Prior to questioning Evans, Gannon
apprised him of his Miranda rights, and Evans signed
a form waiving these rights. Govt's Mem. 2; see
Federal Bureau of Investigation Advice of Rights 1, ECF No.
agents recorded and have transcribed the interrogation. Evans
Tr., ECF No. 39-3. Because Evans disputes neither what was
said nor what he signed, the facts necessary to decide the
Motion are settled, and the Court can therefore decide it
without a hearing. See United States v. Staula, 80
F.3d 596, 603 (1st Cir. 1996) (“A hearing is required
only if the movant makes a sufficient threshold showing that
material facts are in doubt or dispute, and that such facts
cannot reliably be resolved on a paper record.”).
A. Evans waived his Miranda rights prior to the
Evans's statements to be admissible, the Government must
prove that he waived his Miranda rights by a
preponderance of the evidence, and that the waiver was made
“voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.”
See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168, 175
(1986); United States v. Monroe, 264 F.Supp.3d 376,
384 (D.R.I. 2017). The United States Supreme Court has found
that a signed form waiving Miranda rights is not
necessarily sufficient to establish waiver, but that it is
“usually strong proof of the validity of that
waiver.” North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S.
369, 373 (1979). The question of waiver is ultimately
determined according to the surrounding circumstances,
including the background, experience, and conduct of the
defendant. Id. at 374-75.
the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that Evans
knowingly waived his Miranda rights. See
id. Evans provided thoughtful answers to the agents'
questions throughout the interview, without extraordinary
prompting or encouragement. See generally Evans Tr.
Moreover, Evans is a middle-aged man who has a lifetime of
experience in the criminal justice system, including
approximately twenty prior arrests. Govt's Mot. 3. This
background indicates that he knew what he was doing by
signing the Miranda waiver and talking to the
agents. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421
(1986) (“[W]aiver must have been made with a full
awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and
the consequences of the decision to abandon it.”).
Court therefore finds that Evans waived his Miranda
rights prior to his interrogation. His Motion is DENIED as to
his answers to the agents' questions, up to his first
mention of counsel at page twenty-four of the transcript.
Evans Tr. 24.
B. The question of whether Evans invoked his right to counsel
at pages twenty-four and forty-nine is moot.
its response to Evans's Motion, the Government insists
that it does not intend to use any of Evans's testimony
following his first alleged invocation of counsel at page
twenty-four of the transcript. Govt's Mem. 1, 6. The
Court will take the Government at its word, and thus DENY
Evans's Motion as moot insofar as it seeks to suppress
statements made after that point. See United States v.
Acosta, 303 F.3d 78, 81 (1st Cir. 2002) (affirming the
district court's dismissal of a motion to suppress as
moot because the government represented that it would not
rely on the evidence); United States v. Green, No.
98 CR 69(S-3), 1998 WL 938733, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 1998)
(“The Government has decided not to use this ...