Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois; May 13, 2014; Federal District Court
Defendant Charles T. Thomas faced charges of theft of government funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641. He filed a motion to suppress statements made during an interview at his home with federal law enforcement, prompting a three-day evidentiary hearing that included testimonies from Defendant, his wife, and agents from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Labor (DOL), as well as employees from the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and Defendant's physician. The Court, following Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(d), has issued its findings. The investigation into Thomas Painting and Decorating, owned by Defendant, was initiated after CHA received complaints regarding non-compliance with prevailing wage laws and potential bid-rigging. Despite uncertainty about whether Defendant contracted directly with CHA, he was obligated to pay employees according to federal wage standards. The CHA's procurement department audited Defendant's business after the complaints, and documentation was provided by Defendant's attorney to assist in the investigation. The former Inspector General of the CHA conducted interviews with about 30 complainants and ultimately concluded the investigation, leading to the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress.
Roxanne Volkmann, a Contract and Industrial Specialist at HUD, oversaw compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirements for HUD grantees, including the CHA. In 2010, she received complaints from two employees of the Defendant regarding underpayment for work on CHA projects. Volkmann reached out to the CHA, which was responsible for maintaining documentation related to HUD-subsidized projects, requesting payroll information for Thomas Painting and Decorating. CHA's Anderson provided all relevant records to Brad Geary, an Assistant Special Agent in HUD’s Office of the Inspector General, and briefed him on the CHA's investigation with senior auditor Ellaye Accoh. Special Agent Mayra Colin, also in the Inspector General's office, initiated a fraud investigation against the Defendant in November 2010, starting with a background check.
The Defendant underwent surgery on May 25, 2012, for hernia repair and removal of a chest mass. The nearly two-hour procedure, performed by Dr. Carl Johnson, required anesthesia, and the Defendant was sent home with a prescription for Norco, a pain relief medication. Side effects included drowsiness and fatigue, and potential complications from the surgeries included bleeding, infection, and issues related to urination and bowel movements. Post-surgery restrictions advised against lifting more than 10 to 15 pounds to avoid straining, as dehydration could impair cognitive functions.
On June 5, 2012, Special Agents Colin and Dahlgren visited Defendant's home to conduct an interview regarding Thomas Painting and Decorating. Defendant's wife informed the agents that her husband was recovering from surgery and unable to speak, but allowed the agents to enter when they assured her the meeting would be brief. Defendant, feeling lightheaded from pain medication, took at least five minutes to come downstairs.
During the interview in the living room, both agents, dressed in business suits and carrying concealed firearms, testified that they identified themselves and presented credentials. The interview lasted approximately an hour and a half, with Agent Colin leading the conversation and Agent Dahlgren taking notes. They claimed they did not threaten Defendant nor imply he was required to answer questions, maintaining a friendly tone. Defendant, who indicated he was feeling well enough to engage, admitted to being on pain medication and shared recent surgery details but displayed some confusion regarding his IRS debts and employee names.
Agent Colin noted that Defendant strayed off-topic, requiring redirection. Although aware that Defendant had an attorney, he chose to speak with the agents without legal representation, asserting he had nothing to hide. During the interview, Defendant admitted to underpaying employees and inflating work hours on payroll records. After making these admissions, he requested to consult his attorney, prompting the agents to terminate the interview, as they could no longer engage without legal representation. Agent Dahlgren subsequently drafted a report of the interview, which was reviewed by Agent Colin before submission to superiors.
Defendant challenges the accuracy of agents' testimonies regarding an interview, asserting he does not clearly recall the event and felt fatigued and in pain at the time. He claimed that the agents failed to identify themselves or show their badges and presumed they were from the CHA. He indicated that Special Agent Dahlgren dominated the conversation and misrepresented his statements, leading to frustration from the agent when Defendant attempted to correct him. Although Defendant stated that the agent's report contained inaccuracies, he admitted to having limited recall of the interview content.
Following the interview, Defendant experienced drainage from a chest wound, which he initially thought indicated infection, but later claimed to have been told by medical professionals that such drainage was common and not a cause for immediate concern. In a prior signed declaration, he stated that his wound ruptured post-interview, necessitating urgent medical care. There were discrepancies in his account regarding pain medication taken before the interview, with Defendant attributing these inconsistencies to not reviewing his declaration carefully. At a follow-up appointment on June 7, 2012, a doctor noted that Defendant was healing well.
Procedurally, Defendant was indicted for theft of government funds on November 29, 2012, and pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on December 12, 2012. He filed a motion to suppress on May 15, 2013, to which the Government responded. Subsequent hearings were held, culminating in a post-suppression hearing brief filed by Defendant in early 2014. The legal standard for a motion to suppress requires the defendant to provide specific factual allegations of illegality and evidence to support suppression, shifting the burden to the government only after the defendant establishes a basis for the motion. The voluntariness of a statement is assessed based on the totality of the circumstances.
Defendant seeks to suppress his statement to law enforcement, claiming violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as Rule 4.2 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The primary issue revolves around the assertion that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was infringed due to the absence of his attorney during the interview with agents. The Government contends that Defendant did not possess a Sixth Amendment right prior to the formal filing of charges in November 2012. Defendant argues that he had been represented by attorney Sam Adam, Jr. for over two years in a related matter, asserting his right to counsel's presence during the interview.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions, which is established upon the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, such as formal charges or arraignment. The initial appearance before a judicial officer, where the defendant learns of the charges and the potential restrictions on liberty, marks the onset of these proceedings. In this case, the interview occurred in June 2012, prior to any formal charges, meaning Defendant had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel at that time. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant's rights were not violated by the absence of his attorney during the interview.
The defendant contends that using his statement at trial would infringe upon his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination due to his impaired capacity from pain medication, which he argues prevented him from making a voluntary confession. He further claims that his statement was coerced by law enforcement agents. The determination of a confession's voluntariness hinges on whether it resulted from rational intellect and free will or was obtained through coercive methods. Coercive police activity is critical to establishing a confession's involuntariness, assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the suspect's position. Relevant factors include the defendant's age, education, intelligence, mental state, duration of detention, nature of the interrogation, advisement of constitutional rights, and any physical punishment. A confession is deemed involuntary only if coercive actions by police overpowered the accused's will. The defendant specifically alleges coercion based on the agents' failure to identify themselves, misrepresenting the interview's length, and conducting the interrogation while knowing he was under the influence of medication.
The Court concludes that the Defendant's confession was voluntary and not coerced. Key findings include the Defendant's sufficient education and intelligence to understand the interview, which lasted under two hours. Although the Defendant claimed that Special Agent Dahlgren became aggravated during the interview and that he was not informed of his constitutional rights, the Court found no evidence of coercion, as the agents consistently testified they identified themselves and showed their badges. The Court also noted that even if the agents failed to identify themselves, this alone would not constitute coercion.
The Defendant argued that his mental state, influenced by pain medication, compromised his ability to provide a voluntary statement. However, the Court emphasized that diminished mental capacity does not automatically equate to coercion, particularly if there is no evidence linking the medication's effects to the alleged coercion by the police. The agents recognized the Defendant was recovering from surgery but did not find his behavior indicative of being coerced.
Despite some inconsistencies in the Defendant's testimony, which included inaccuracies about his medication and confusion during the interview, the agents maintained that he appeared lucid and understood the questions posed. The Court expressed skepticism about the Defendant's claims of diminished capacity but ultimately concluded that no coercive tactics were demonstrated. The burden to prove that any alleged diminished capacity made coercion more effective lies with the Defendant, which he failed to meet. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Defendant's statement was voluntary, affirming that his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated.
Defendant has not established any constitutional violation by the agents, but the Court finds their investigative tactics concerning. Special Agent Colin acknowledged knowledge of Defendant's representation by attorney Sam Adam, Jr., despite Defendant's claims to the contrary during the interview. The agents exploited Defendant's lack of legal understanding, circumventing his Fifth Amendment rights. While the Court deems Defendant's mental state insufficient to invalidate the voluntariness of his confession, it suggests that contacting Defendant’s attorney prior to the interview could have prevented the situation. The Court notes a lack of case law provided by Defendant to support suppression of his statement, emphasizing that deceitful conduct by government agents alone does not render a confession inadmissible without accompanying threats or promises. The Court reaffirms the need for agents to pursue criminal investigations diligently but warns HUD and DOL that their agents' actions approached the limits of permissible behavior under the Fifth Amendment.
Defendant claims a violation of Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 occurred when agents interviewed him without his attorney present. The Government counters that Defendant was not represented during the HUD investigation, making Rule 4.2 irrelevant. This rule prohibits attorneys from communicating with individuals known to be represented by another attorney unless consent is given. The Court must first determine if Rule 4.2 applies, noting it applies to prosecutors before formal charges are filed. However, since the agents are not attorneys and the rule does not explicitly extend to law enforcement, its application is questionable. Defendant argues the agents acted as alter egos of CHA attorneys, but evidence shows CHA and HUD investigations were separate, and there was no joint investigation. An email presented by the Government indicated the interview was requested by an Assistant United States Attorney, suggesting the agents could be seen as alter egos when acting under specific instructions from the prosecutor. However, to establish such a relationship, it must be shown that the prosecutor directed how to elicit incriminating statements, which was not evidenced in this case. The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated a violation of Rule 4.2, and therefore, cannot suppress his statement based on this rule.
Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement is denied. The ruling is based on testimony from multiple witnesses during an evidentiary hearing on September 9, 2013, as well as facts from the indictment and undisputed information from Defendant's amended motion and the Government’s response. The Court assumes the interview took place on June 5, 2012, due to a lack of credible evidence to the contrary. Defendant's claim of a Fourteenth Amendment violation is dismissed, as he did not identify a State actor or raise an Equal Protection Clause issue. The Court proceeds to analyze claims under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and State law. Defendant's arguments regarding the Illinois Constitution were not mentioned in subsequent briefs, leading the Court to conclude these claims have been abandoned. Additionally, while Defendant argued that he should have been presented with a waiver of rights form or been admonished of his rights under Miranda, he conceded that such advisement was unnecessary because he was not in custody. The Court agrees that there was no requirement for Miranda warnings during the non-custodial interview conducted by HUD agents.
