FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30129
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00070-RFC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KRISTI MAE LITTLE WOLF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Kristi Mae Little Wolf appeals the denial of her motion to
suppress statements made to police during an in-home interview about her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
participation in a scheme to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Little Wolf argues that because the investigating officers did not inform her
of her right against self-incrimination, “the prosecution may not use statements . . .
stemming from” that questioning because she was in custody at the time. See
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Little Wolf was “in custody” when
interviewed in her home if, based on “the totality of the circumstances . . . a
reasonable person in [her] position . . . would not have felt free to terminate the
interrogation” and leave. United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082–83 (9th
Cir. 2008). In evaluating such claims, courts examine:
(1) the number of law enforcement personnel and whether they were
armed; (2) whether the suspect was at any point restrained, either by
physical force or by threats; (3) whether the suspect was isolated from
others; and (4) whether the suspect was informed that he was free to
leave or terminate the interview, and the context in which any such
statements were made.
Id. at 1084.
None of these factors weigh in favor of the conclusion that Little Wolf was
in custody when questioned by the investigating officers. As the district court
found after conducting a hearing, three law enforcement officers entered Little
Wolf’s home dressed in plain clothes. None of the officers openly carried
weapons. The tone of the interview was generally cordial and Little Wolf was
cooperative. Little Wolf was not handcuffed or otherwise restrained, and the
record shows that she could move freely about her home. The officers permitted
Little Wolf to keep her baby with her during their questioning, and the record does
not suggest that the officers attempted to isolate Little Wolf from the outside
world. In fact, one of the investigating officers told Little Wolf that she was not
going to be arrested and she was free to leave. While “[t]he mere recitation of the
statement that the suspect is free to leave or terminate the interview . . . does not
render an interrogation non-custodial per se,” Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1088, and
the court must consider the delivery of these statements within the context of the
interview as a whole, id., the record here shows that Little Wolf was not questioned
while in custody.
AFFIRMED.
3