United States v. Rehaif

Citations: 178 F. Supp. 3d 1275; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44831; 2016 WL 1337265Docket: CASE NO: 6:16-cr-3-Orl-28DAB

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida; April 1, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A grand jury indicted Defendant Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif, a UAE citizen on a student visa, on two counts: Illegal Alien in Possession of a Firearm and Illegal Alien in Possession of Ammunition. Rehaif filed a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained from federal law enforcement questioning, arguing that he did not feel free to terminate the encounter. The court evaluated whether a reasonable person in Rehaif's position would believe they could leave, concluding that they would. Consequently, the Motion to Suppress was denied.

On December 8, 2015, the Melbourne Police were alerted by the Hilton Rialto Hotel manager about Rehaif's suspicious behavior after he had stayed for over 50 days, paying in cash and frequently requesting a specific room. The manager also noted that Rehaif had given hotel staff ammunition as souvenirs. Police officers responded, and after a preliminary investigation, contacted ICE. Federal agents arrived later that day, and upon encountering Rehaif in the hotel lobby, Sergeant Hopping engaged with him, asking to talk. Rehaif complied and was seated without any coercion or indication that he was not free to leave.

When federal agents returned, they approached Rehaif. Agent Martin requested to conduct a pat down for safety, which Rehaif agreed to, confirming he was not armed. During this interaction, Agent Slone inquired about anyone being in Rehaif's hotel room, to which Rehaif responded that it was unoccupied and allowed Agent Slone to check, confirming the room was indeed open and unoccupied after a quick search.

Agents Acosta and Slone conducted an interview with the Defendant in a conference room after Agent Martin escorted him there. The interview covered the Defendant's visa status, revealing he was no longer enrolled in school and acknowledged being in violation of his immigration status. The conversation shifted to firearms, where the Defendant admitted to purchasing three firearms in Florida, giving one to his girlfriend, and using firearms at two local ranges. To gain access to these ranges, he obtained a Florida hunting license. He also disclosed possessing ammunition in his hotel room, granting agents permission to search it, where they found the ammunition as described. Additionally, he consented in writing for agents to search a local storage facility and his cell phone. The interview lasted between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half hours, during which the Defendant remained calm and made no requests for breaks or indicated any discomfort. There was no evidence of coercion or intimidation from the agents, although one officer was in uniform and armed. The excerpt cites the Fifth Amendment and relevant case law regarding Miranda rights, emphasizing that these rights apply only when custodial interrogation begins. Statements made prior to custody are not protected under Miranda.

Defendant's statements, made during interrogation without Miranda warnings, are subject to suppression based on whether he was in custody. Custody for Miranda purposes can exist without formal arrest; however, mere feelings of constraint are insufficient. A defendant is considered in custody when there is a restraint on freedom of movement akin to a formal arrest. The assessment of custody is objective, focusing on whether a reasonable, innocent person in the defendant's position would feel free to leave, disregarding personal beliefs of the defendant or officers.

Factors influencing the custody determination include the officers' conduct (e.g., use of weapons, physical contact, tone of voice), the duration and location of the encounter, any physical restraint, and the suspect's access to basic needs. No single factor is definitive; the totality of circumstances must be evaluated.

In this case, the court noted that the Defendant did not testify or provide evidence during the suppression hearing. The Government presented credible testimony from law enforcement officers, indicating a courteous interaction. Sergeant Hopping initiated the encounter respectfully, asking if he could speak with the Defendant and inviting him to sit in a public hotel lobby. The tone remained benign throughout, with no threats or coercive behavior from the officers. The Defendant voluntarily cooperated, providing consent for a pat down and access to his room, without any indication of being ordered or compelled by the officers.

Investigators did not engage in threatening behavior during the encounter with the Defendant at the Hilton Rialto Hotel, where he had been living for nearly two months. Although four federal agents were present, only Agents Martin, Acosta, and Slone interacted with the Defendant, and Agent Martin’s contact was brief. Officers Hopping and Palmeri were uniformed and armed, but there was no indication they intended to use their firearms. The federal agents assumed control of the situation, while the police maintained a passive role. Their weapons remained concealed until after the interview. 

Officer Palmeri's presence might have been perceived as a show of force, but his position relative to the Defendant was unclear. The only physical contact during the encounter occurred when Agent Martin conducted a pat down, following the Defendant’s consent. The duration of the questioning is disputed, lasting between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half hours, but it was not long enough to suggest that a reasonable person would feel they were not free to leave. Investigators did not offer the Defendant food, drink, or bathroom access, nor did he request them, although the investigators indicated such provisions would have been available upon request. 

The case examines whether the Defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, noting that comments from law enforcement regarding the freedom to leave are informative but not definitive. The objective custody test does not consider an individual’s subjective perspective, including personal experiences or generational views of authority. In this instance, the Defendant's freedom of movement was not restricted, and law enforcement officers acted with politeness and professionalism. There were no signs of forceful authority or intimidating exchanges, and the officers asked for the Defendant's willingness to participate at the start of each investigation phase. Given these factors, it was concluded that the Defendant was not in custody during the questioning, resulting in the denial of his Motion to Suppress. The ruling was finalized on April 1, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, concerning violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A).