United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
the Court are the November 19, 2019 and November 21, 2019
Reports and Recommendations (R&Rs) of United States
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer, (Dkts. 49, 51), which
recommend denying Defendant Randy Lawrence Williams-Bey's
motions to suppress statements and evidence respectively.
Williams-Bey filed timely objections to the November 19, 2019
R&R, and Plaintiff United States of America responded.
For the reasons addressed below, the Court overrules
Williams-Bey's objections and adopts the R&Rs.
individual robbed a bank in Woodbury, Minnesota, on February
12, 2019. After receiving descriptions of the perpetrator and
his vehicle, law enforcement officers of the Saint Paul
Police Department identified Williams-Bey as the perpetrator
and arrested him near his home on the day of the robbery.
Sack and Officer Roddy of the Woodbury Police Department
arrived at the scene of Williams-Bey's arrest after he
had been handcuffed. These Woodbury Police officers were
taking over the custody of Williams-Bey from the Saint Paul
Police officers. Before putting Williams-Bey in their squad
car, the Woodbury Police officers decided to conduct a
protective search of Williams-Bey's body. Detective Sack
asked Williams-Bey whether he physically possessed a weapon.
Williams-Bey responded: “No. Wasn't no weapon used
in the bank robbery.” At this point, Williams-Bey had
not received a Miranda warning.
Roddy drove Williams-Bey to the police station. While in the
back of the squad car, Williams-Bey initiated a conversation
with Officer Roddy by asking, “Can I ask a
question?” When Officer Roddy responded, “yes,
” Williams-Bey asked, “How did they catch
police station later that same day, Detectives Jeffrey Gort
and Lynn Lund of the Woodbury Police Department questioned
Williams-Bey about whether he was involved in the robbery.
Prior to questioning him, Detective Lund read Williams-Bey
the Miranda warnings, and Williams-Bey stated that
he understood his rights. Williams-Bey then confessed to
committing the robbery.
now moves to suppress the statements that he provided to the
law enforcement officers on February 12, 2019, and to
suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrants to
search his home and car. Following an October 1, 2019
evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge issued two R&Rs
recommending the denial of Williams-Bey's motions to
suppress. Williams-Bey filed a timely objection to the
November 19, 2019 R&R, which addresses the motion to
suppress his February 12, 2019 statements. And the United
States filed a timely response.
Williams-Bey's Objections to the November 19, 2019
Court reviews de novo any aspect of the November 19,
2019 R&R to which Williams-Bey objects. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3); LR
72.2(b)(3); accord Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793,
795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Williams-Bey objects to the
R&R's recommendations not to suppress his three
statements made to the police.
person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. A
district court may not admit in evidence any statement of a
suspect made during custodial interrogation unless the
prosecution “demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against
self-incrimination.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Prior to a custodial interrogation, a
law enforcement officer must obtain the voluntary, knowing,
and intelligently granted waiver of a suspect's
Miranda rights. Id. The Court addresses
each of Williams-Bey's statements and objections in turn.
Williams-Bey's Statement During the Transfer of
the transfer of custody, Detective Sack asked Williams-Bey
whether he physically possessed any weapon. In response,
Williams-Bey said: “No. Wasn't no weapon used in
the bank robbery.” Although Williams-Bey was in custody