JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, United States District Judge.
Before me is the defendant's statement of objections (Filing No. 28) to the magistrate's report and recommendation (Filing No. 27) in which the magistrate recommended that I deny the defendant's motion to suppress statements (Filing No. 14). The defendant stands charged by indictment (Filing No. 1) with one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 841(a)(1). The defendant moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials after his arrest and while he was in custody on the grounds that he was not advised of his Miranda rights and that the statements were not voluntary.
The defendant submitted a brief in support of his statement of objections, and the government has elected to not submit a responsive brief. I have reviewed the record, the defendant's statement of objections and brief, the transcript (Filing No. 26) of the hearing on the motion to suppress, and the applicable law. I hereby overrule the defendant's objections and adopt the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety.
The defendant's main objection rests upon his contention that the statements he made to Nebraska State Patrol Investigator Jeffrey Shelton during a post-arrest interview at the Buffalo County Detention Center in Kearney, Nebraska, were not voluntary and hence violated his right against self-incrimination. The interview took place when Investigator Shelton went to the detention center and asked to speak to the defendant. A correctional officer retrieved the defendant from his cell and escorted him to a room in Cell Block M for the interview. The investigator testified that he believed the defendant could have chosen to refuse to speak to him. Only Investigator Shelton and the defendant were present during the interview. The investigator testified that the defendant could not have left the locked interview room on his own, but would have needed to summon a correctional officer through one-way glass to escort him back to his cell. Investigator Shelton was dressed in plainclothes and did not display a weapon.
While Investigator Shelton was uncertain during his testimony about whether he gave the defendant his Miranda rights before or after he explained to the defendant that the purpose of his visit was to obtain information about Craig Morton, he was certain that the defendant voluntarily agreed to speak to him. The investigator neither promised the defendant benefits or special consideration nor used any force to coerce the defendant's consent to the interview. The defendant appeared to Investigator Shelton to be sober and rational.
The investigator read the Miranda rights to the defendant from the standard Nebraska State Patrol "Advice of Rights" form, which indicated that the interview would concern "distribution of methamphetamine," then handed the form to the defendant for his own review. The defendant indicated to the investigator that he understood the rights listed on the form, and told the investigator that he would speak with him. The investigator and a Kearney police officer witnessed the defendant's signature on the form.
The interview lasted thirty to forty-five minutes. Investigator Shelton testified that he might have told the defendant that he was looking for information "up the ladder" in the alleged drug conspiracy, but he testified that he never told the defendant that the activities of those "down the ladder" — including the defendant himself — were of no interest. Craig Morton was one subject of conversation during the interview, but the defendant also made incriminating statements about his own involvement in illegal drug activities. The defendant seeks to suppress those statements.
I agree with the magistrate that the defendant's incriminating statements were voluntarily made and that the investigator advised the defendant of his Miranda rights before the defendant volunteered the statements. First, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview demonstrates no coercion, intimidation, deception, or promises on the investigator's part that would have overborne the defendant's will. Although he was in custody when Investigator Shelton asked to interview him, the defendant was free to refuse the interview request. See United States v. Kilgore, 58 F.3d 350, 353 (8th Cir. 1995). The defendant claims that the investigator never told him that he was free to return to his own cell, but the investigator was not obliged to do so. Once the investigator advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, the defendant could be charged with the knowledge that his further cooperation represented a voluntary waiver of those rights. See United States v. Jones, 23 F.3d 1307, 1313 (8th Cir. 1994).
Second, the defendant was thoroughly advised of his Miranda rights. Not only did the investigator read the advice of rights form to the defendant, but the defendant, who was not alcohol- or drug-impaired at the time of the interview, also read the form himself and signed it. He cannot now claim that he did not understand the statement in the form that reads, "Anything you say can be used against you in court." While the interview may have dealt largely with Craig Morton's role in a drug conspiracy, the defendant's contributions about his own illegal activities were made voluntarily after he had been advised of his right against self-incrimination. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that
1) The defendant's objections (Filing No. 28) to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Filing No. 27) are overruled;
2) The defendant's motion to suppress statements (Filing No. 14) is denied; and
3) The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Filing No. 27) is adopted in its entirety.