United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 01-2276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellant,
v.
DAVID C. FAULKINGHAM,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
____________________
F. Mark Terison, Senior Litigation Counsel, with whom Paula
D. Silsby, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellant.
Kevin Lawrence Barron, with whom Denner-Sayeg, LLP was on
brief for appellee.
____________________
July 9, 2002
____________________
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. David Faulkingham is charged with
possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute
heroin. On the day of his arrest he made inculpatory statements to
agents of the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA). The agents did
not give the required warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 (1966), before Faulkingham made the statements. Faulkingham's
own statements were thus ordered suppressed under Miranda. His
statements, however, also led to the discovery of derivative
evidence that was important to the government's case against him.
That derivative evidence was testimony by a coconspirator and the
drugs themselves, and it is the subject of this appeal.
Faulkingham argued, and the district court agreed, that
the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, common to Fourth
Amendment jurisprudence, should also apply to the derivative
evidence, given the facts of this particular Miranda violation
under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Faulkingham, 156 F.
Supp. 2d 60 (D. Me. 2001). In the end, the court granted the
motion to suppress, believing that "suppression of the derivative
evidence . . . will serve to remind law enforcement that even in
'the excitement of the moment' law enforcement retains an important
duty to inform an individual taken into custody of his
constitutional rights." Id. at 72.
Individuals in custody should, of course, be informed of
their rights. But we disagree that in this case the concerns that
animate the Fifth Amendment require the suppression of the
-2-
derivative evidence, as opposed to the suppression of Faulkingham's
own unwarned statements.
I.
We outline the facts in this case as found by the
magistrate judge and adopted by the district judge, and
supplemented from the record. On July 28, 2000, Mark Leonard, an
agent of the MDEA, received information from a confidential
informant that Faulkingham was a drug dealer who lived on Route 102
in Tremont, Maine, and drove a tan Lincoln Town Car. The
confidential informant also told Leonard that Faulkingham's
driver's license was suspended, a fact that Leonard confirmed later
that day.
On August 1, Leonard and another MDEA agent, Robert
Hutchings, set off for Tremont to follow up on the information
Leonard received from the confidential informant. On their way,
the agents obtained a 1996 jail photograph of Faulkingham from the
Hancock County Sheriff's Department.
When the agents reached the residence, they observed it
from their car, which was parked in a driveway not far away. At
approximately 3:15 p.m., the agents saw a tan Lincoln Town Car
leaving the driveway of the residence. They followed the Town Car,
until it slowed down to a stop. Leonard and Hutchings thought the
driver of the Town Car matched the person in the photograph of
Faulkingham.
Hutchings approached the car, showed his identification
shield, said he was an MDEA agent, and told the driver to "shut
-3-
[his] car off, and get out of the car." Faulkingham identified
himself. Hutchings conducted a patdown search and found cash,
heroin, and a syringe on Faulkingham. Hutchings then arrested
Faulkingham for operating his vehicle after suspension of his
license, handcuffed him, and seated him in the back seat of the
agents' car. Hutchings said to Faulkingham: "[J]ust sit here. I
don't want you to say anything to me at this point. I have some
paperwork we're going to have to do. I have some paperwork I'm
going to have to read to you." Hutchings also told Faulkingham
that he was "seek[ing] [his] cooperation." Among the paperwork to
which Hutchings referred was a form containing the Miranda warning,
which, if signed, would confirm that Faulkingham had received the
warning.
Hutchings stored the evidence from the patdown search in
the trunk of the car. When he returned to Faulkingham, he did not
give him the Miranda warning, even though, as the magistrate judge
noted, "Hutchings understood that he had a suspect in custody that
he intended to interrogate." United States v. Faulkingham, No.
CRIM 01-04-B-S, 2001 WL 586667, at *2 (D. Me. May 29, 2001).
Faulkingham told Hutchings that he would be sick in about two hours
from heroin withdrawal. Hutchings explained to Faulkingham that if
he got sick, the agents would "get him medical attention."
Faulkingham did not then show physical signs of being under the
influence of any drugs, and the agents "kept checking with"
Faulkingham throughout the process to see how he was feeling.
-4-
In the meantime, agent Leonard dealt with the two other
passengers in the Town Car. After confirming that there were no
warrants for the passengers, he told them they could leave, and
they left the scene on foot.
Faulkingham told Hutchings that if he was going to
cooperate, then the two passengers who were walking away would pose
a problem. One of the passengers, Faulkingham said, was the
roommate of his supplier, and as soon as he returned to his home
"the heroin will either be flushed or hidden or something."
Faulkingham also asked the agents what type of deal he could get if
he decided to cooperate. The agents explained that they were not
authorized to make any deals, but would pass on information about
his cooperation to the prosecutor, who could work out a deal with
Faulkingham's attorney.
Leonard and Hutchings searched Faulkingham's car, but
found no other significant evidence. While they were searching the
car, Faulkingham's wife, who happened to drive by the scene,
stopped in her red pickup truck. She was dismayed when Hutchings
told her of Faulkingham's arrest and said Faulkingham had recently
completed a drug rehabilitation program. Hutchings gave
Faulkingham's wife permission to speak with him. Faulkingham
apologized to her, and asked her to get some bail money and to call
his attorney.
As the agents were finishing up their search of
Faulkingham's car, Faulkingham got the agents' attention, and when
they walked up to their car, he told them that if he was going to
-5-
cooperate and be helpful to them, he would have to be on the phone
with his supplier by 3:30 p.m. Hutchings and Leonard both realized
that it was already 3:28 p.m. Leonard called the agents'
supervisor, Peter Arno, to get instructions on how to proceed.
Arno gave the agents permission to have Faulkingham contact his
supplier and record the phone call.
Faulkingham asked the agents to leave the roadside so
that he would not be seen. After releasing Faulkingham from the
handcuffs, Hutchings drove the agents' car, with Faulkingham in it,
to a marina about a mile away. Leonard followed them in the Town
Car. At the marina, Faulkingham made a few attempts to contact his
supplier, but he failed because of bad reception. Faulkingham also
suspected that his supplier did not answer the phone because he did
not recognize the caller ID number, or because the supplier's
roommate had already informed the supplier of Faulkingham's arrest.
The agents asked Faulkingham how he was feeling to be sure he was
not yet sick. Faulkingham continued to appear normal.
Because Faulkingham could not reach his supplier from the
marina, he persuaded the agents to go to his house and make the
phone call from there. When they arrived at Faulkingham's house,
he did make contact with Mark Power, who he said was his supplier.1
Faulkingham told Power that he had been stopped by the police just
for "a driving thing," and had been released by the police. He
1
Power, who later cooperated with the government and
became a witness against Faulkingham, denied this and claimed that
Faulkingham himself was the supplier. In deciding the motion to
suppress, the district court had no need to resolve this conflict,
and neither do we.
-6-
also told Power that he should come over to the Faulkingham
residence with the heroin in order to hide it because MDEA agents
were in the area. Eventually, Power arrived at the residence.
After being confronted by the agents, Power also agreed to
cooperate, and drugs were seized from Power's residence.
Throughout the agents' contact with Faulkingham, they did
not administer the Miranda warning to him. At the suppression
hearing, they conceded that they should have but had not done so.
They explained that lack of time and the rapid pace of the events
on the day of the arrest were the reasons for their omission.
II.
Faulkingham, Power, and another coconspirator were
indicted for conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin and
possessing heroin with the intent to distribute it, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Faulkingham filed a motion to suppress the statements he
made to the MDEA agents while in their custody, Mark Power's
testimony, and the heroin to which Power's statements led the
agents. The magistrate judge's decision recommended the motion as
to Faulkingham's statements be granted because the agents did not
give him the Miranda warning, but that the motion as to Power's
statements and the physical evidence be denied, because the "fruit
of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply to the Miranda
exclusionary rule. Faulkingham, 2001 WL 586667, at *5-7.
The district court modified the magistrate judge's
recommended decision by applying the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
-7-
doctrine to this Miranda violation, and suppressing not only
Faulkingham's custodial statements, but the derivative evidence of
Power's statements and the drugs. Faulkingham, 156 F. Supp. 2d 60.
The district court appropriately rejected any per se application of
the "fruits" doctrine to the Miranda violation, and made case-
specific factual findings. Id. at 70. It found that the Miranda
violation was not a technical one, and that it followed from that
violation that Faulkingham did not knowingly and intelligently
understand that he was waiving his privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination. Id. at 70-71. The court found that all the
derivative evidence at issue was obtained through Faulkingham's
unwarned statements, and that the derivative evidence would not
otherwise have been inevitably discovered. Id. at 71. The
district court agreed with the magistrate judge's factual findings
that there were no coercive official tactics by the police and that
Faulkingham's statements were voluntary. Id. at 67-68. The court
did not find that the agents had deliberately violated
Faulkingham's Miranda rights. Id. at 66. It stated, however, that
their failure to give the warning was "negligent, at best." Id.
It then reasoned that "Faulkingham's statements were coerced by the
lack of a Miranda warning." Id. at 67. It concluded that the
deterrence rationale for Miranda dictated the suppression of both
Faulkingham's statements and the derivative evidence. Id. at 71-
72.
The government now appeals from the suppression order.
It argues that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not
-8-
apply to Miranda violations. The government also argues that this
court's opinion in United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405 (1st Cir.
1998), on which the district court based its decision, does not
apply to this case, and that even if the factors considered by the
court in Byram were to be used here,2 the derivative evidence
should not be suppressed.
III.
On an appeal of a disposition of a motion to suppress,
"we accept the district court's findings of fact unless clearly
erroneous and evaluate its legal conclusions de novo." United
States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001). Thus, we must
determine anew whether the evidence obtained as a result of
Faulkingham's unwarned statements should be suppressed under the
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
The requirement that a confession must be voluntary in
order to be admitted into evidence rests on two constitutional
bases: "the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States
v. Dickerson, 530 U.S. 428, 433 (2000). It is clear that
Faulkingham's statements to the agents were not obtained in
2
The district court in this case misapprehended Byram as
setting down a hard and fast test that fruits evidence must be
suppressed when "[f]irst the Miranda violation [is] 'not merely
technical.' Second, there [is] 'a substantial nexus between the
violation and the second statement.' Third . . . 'the second
statement is not itself preceded by an adequate Miranda warning.'"
Faulkingham, 156 F. Supp. 2d at 69. (quoting Byram, 145 F.3d at
410). This language from Byram is appropriately read as an attempt
to identify and evaluate the competing interests presented in the
specific facts of that case, and not as creating a rigid test.
-9-
violation of the Due Process Clause, because an examination of "the
totality of all the surrounding circumstances -- both the
characteristics of the accused and the details of the
interrogation," Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27
(1973), shows that Faulkingham expressed a willingness to cooperate
with the MDEA agents, and spoke freely to them about his supplier,
without even being formally questioned by the agents.
It is also clear, however, that Faulkingham's statements
were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment because he was
not given a Miranda warning. As the district court correctly
decided, his statements to the agents should therefore be
suppressed. The question here is whether the reasons for mandating
a Miranda warning to offset the impact of an inherently coercive
custodial interrogation on an individual's Fifth Amendment rights
not to incriminate himself, Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 434-35, should
also lead to the suppression of derivative evidence, the leads to
which are obtained from the statements of a defendant during an
unwarned interrogation. In other words, should the evidence
derived from Faulkingham's statements, or fruits evidence, also be
suppressed because the agents violated the Miranda rule? In
considering this question, it is important to keep in mind the
"twin rationales" for Miranda: trustworthiness and deterrence.
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 308 (1985).
In Elstad, the Supreme Court reversed the suppression of
derivative evidence in the form of a later warned and voluntary
statement, after the initial statement was given without a Miranda
-10-
warning, and was itself suppressed. 470 U.S. at 317-18. The Court
rejected the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree
analysis to determine whether the second statement should be
suppressed. Instead, it focused on "whether . . . the second
statement was . . . voluntarily made," and concluded that because
it was voluntary, it was admissible in evidence. Id. at 318.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Elstad, several
circuits adopted a flat rule that a Miranda violation may never
lead to suppression of derivative evidence. See, e.g., United
States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2002); United
States v. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176, 179-81 (3d Cir. 2001); United
States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 894 F.2d 1043, 1047-48 (9th Cir.
1990); United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1517-18
(6th Cir. 1988).
By contrast, this court has expressed the tentative view,
in the absence of further guidance from the Supreme Court, that
Elstad "does not wholly bar the door to excluding evidence derived
from a Miranda violation -- at least where the Miranda violation is
not merely technical, where there is a substantial nexus between
the violation and the [fruits evidence], and where the [fruits
evidence, in Byram a second statement made in open court,] is not
itself preceded by an adequate Miranda warning." Byram, 145 F.3d
at 409-10.
There are at least three categories of evidence that may
be derivative fruits of an un-Mirandized confession: physical
evidence, statements by a witness who is not the unwarned
-11-
defendant, and later statements by the defendant himself after an
initial unwarned statement. Our decision in Byram and the Supreme
Court's decision in Elstad involved the third category -- further
statements by the defendant. This case involves, instead, only the
first two categories -- physical evidence and statements of another
witness.
It is entirely plausible to think that the admissibility
of these three different categories of evidence derived from un-
Mirandized custodial statements should be analyzed in different
ways.3 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court thus far has not
differentiated in its analysis between the three categories of
derivative evidence and, to the contrary, has used broad language,
discouraging the use of the fruits doctrine following a Miranda
violation, whatever the nature of the derivative evidence. Elstad,
470 U.S. at 307 ("[T]he Miranda presumption . . . does not require
that the statements and their fruits be discarded as inherently
tainted."). In deciding that the fruits doctrine did not apply to
the Miranda violations on the facts of Elstad, the Court had to
distinguish a violation of the Miranda rule from violations of
3
For example, it is arguable that further statements by a
defendant himself should be most easily suppressed as the
deterrence value of suppression is then high compared to the other
two categories, and even later statements by a defendant may
involve trustworthiness concerns. (But there is a counter-argument
that there is an intermediating opportunity for a later statement
to be voluntary. Cf. Elstad, 470 U.S. at 347 & n.29 (Brennan, J.,
dissenting)). The limited role played by the distinction between
the categories of evidence here is to underline the lack of
deterrence value and absence of trustworthiness concerns about
physical evidence and statements of a third party, which are the
subject of the suppression order here.
-12-
different clauses of the Constitution to which the fruits doctrine
does apply.
The most common application of the fruit of the poisonous
tree doctrine is as a remedy for violations of the Fourth
Amendment, which protects against unlawful arrests and searches.
The Supreme Court first articulated the fruits doctrine in a case
where the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Wong
Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); see also Taylor v.
Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 689-93 (1982); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S.
200, 216-19 (1979). The Court has also applied the doctrine to
some violations of the Fifth Amendment, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S.
431, 442 & n.3 (1984) (citing Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S.
52, 79 (1964), which stated that the doctrine applied to the fruits
of compelled in-court testimony), and to violations of the Sixth
Amendment under the Massiah doctrine,4 id. at 442 (citing United
States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), which applied the fruits
doctrine to courtroom identifications resulting from pretrial
identifications at which no defense counsel was present, id. at
239-42). Perhaps for that reason, Elstad discussed the particular
Fifth Amendment concerns protected by the Miranda rule.
Elstad drew a distinction between Fourth Amendment rights
and Fifth Amendment rights, the latter being those that implicate
4
The Massiah doctrine guarantees the defendant's right to
counsel once a criminal proceeding has been initiated, and forbids
the government from "'deliberately elicit[ing]' statements from the
defendant, in the absence of counsel and without a proper waiver."
United States v. Labare, 191 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206 (1964)).
-13-
Miranda warnings, and said that "a procedural Miranda violation
differs in significant respects from violations of the Fourth
Amendment." Elstad, 470 U.S. at 306. Elstad stated that the
purpose of the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment is "to
deter unreasonable searches, no matter how probative their fruits."
Id. The Fourth Amendment is specifically concerned with an
individual's privacy and security and so with the methodology that
law enforcement officers use in their searches. Bustamonte, 412
U.S. at 242. By contrast, Elstad reasoned that the Fifth
Amendment, by its terms, "is not concerned with non-testimonial
evidence. Nor is it concerned with moral and psychological
pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official
coercion." 470 U.S. at 304-05 (citations omitted). Instead, the
Fifth Amendment is meant to safeguard the trustworthiness of
testimony at trial and the fairness of the trial. Id. at 308;
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 242. Once the un-Mirandized inculpatory
statements of the defendant are themselves suppressed, the role of
deterrence under the Fifth Amendment becomes less primary. As the
Court stated in Bustamonte, "[t]he guarantees of the Fourth
Amendment stand 'as a protection of quite different constitutional
values'" from those protected by the Fifth Amendment. 412 U.S. at
242 (quoting Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406,
416 (1966)).5
5
In fact, the requirement that a Miranda warning be
administered by the police is often seen as a safe (though not
impregnable) harbor for the police, benefitting the police, perhaps
more than the defendant. R.A. Leo, Questioning the Relevance of
Miranda in the Twenty-First Century, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1000, 1021-22
-14-
Faulkingham argues that Elstad's continuing vitality has
been called into question by Dickerson, which reaffirmed the status
of Miranda's warning requirement as a constitutional rule binding
on the federal and state governments. Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 438-
41. It is one thing, Faulkingham says, to decline to suppress
evidence that is the fruit of a Miranda violation when there was a
doubt as to whether Miranda was a constitutionally grounded rule or
was merely a prophylactic procedure, as it was described in Elstad,
470 U.S. at 306, and Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444 (1974).
It is another, he argues, to fail to use the fruits doctrine now
that we know from Dickerson that Miranda is constitutionally
grounded.
We agree in part with Faulkingham: Dickerson does
strengthen his claim. But Dickerson does not itself win the day
for him. Dickerson cited Elstad, without overruling it, stating
that its "decision in that case -- refusing to apply the
traditional 'fruits' doctrine developed in Fourth Amendment cases
-- does not prove that Miranda is a nonconstitutional decision, but
simply recognizes the fact that unreasonable searches under the
Fourth Amendment are different from unwarned interrogation under
(2001) ("By creating the opportunity for police to read suspects
their constitutional rights and by allowing police to obtain a
signed waiver form that signifies consensual and non-coercive
interrogation, Miranda has helped the police shield themselves from
evidentiary challenges. . . ."); see also Dickerson, 530 U.S. at
444 (noting that the Miranda rule is beneficial to law enforcement
officers because it is relatively easy "to apply in a consistent
manner"). As Dickerson notes, "Miranda has become embedded in
routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become
part of our national culture." 530 U.S. at 443.
-15-
the Fifth Amendment." Id. at 440. The various differences in
purpose behind the Fourth and Fifth amendments, articulated in
Elstad, continue unchanged by Dickerson, and those differences
affect the remedial options appropriate for violations of the two
distinct constitutional amendments, and, more specifically, for
violations of the Miranda rule.
Unlike some other circuits, we are unwilling, at least
until the Supreme Court addresses the issue, to say that the
interest of deterrence may never lead to the suppression of
derivative evidence from a Miranda violation. In Byram, this court
suppressed both the original unwarned statements and later
statements made at trial. The court considered the circumstances
surrounding both the original confession and the later statement.
Byram, 145 F.3d at 410. Between the two statements, Byram was kept
in jail without ready access to counsel, subpoenaed, given no new
warning, and deliberately asked questions by the prosecutor to
elicit the same self-incriminating statements he had given earlier.
Id. at 410; cf. United States v. Esquilin, 208 F.3d 315, 318-21
(1st Cir. 2000) (suppressing the first un-Mirandized statement, but
admitting the post-Miranda statements after examining the
circumstances surrounding those statements and whether they were
voluntary); Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 244-45 (2d Cir.
1998) (after considering the "totality of the circumstances," the
court did not suppress the second statement because the defendant
was warned between the first and second statements and the
statement was voluntary).
-16-
But deterrence weighs less heavily on the Fifth Amendment
legal scale, which balances the value of the derivative evidence to
the truth seeking process against the protection of the defendant's
Fifth Amendment rights, once the defendant's own statements are
suppressed. The balance, to the extent the Supreme Court's case
law may permit balancing, necessarily involves weighing the
reliability of the unwarned derivative evidence against the need
for deterrence. Here, the derivative evidence is itself reliable.
Further, the defendant's own statements were not coerced and were
not unreliable in the classic sense of involuntariness. See
Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 432-33 (stating that before Miranda, "the
law governing the admission of confessions" was concerned with the
unreliability of coerced confessions); Elstad, 470 U.S. at 304
(same). Where, as here, negligence is the reason that the police
failed to give a Miranda warning, the role of deterrence is weaker
than in a case, such as Byram, where the apparent reason the police
failed to give a warning was their intention to manipulate the
defendant into giving them information.
Faulkingham's claim, taking all the surrounding
circumstances into account, simply does not tip the balance toward
a strong need for deterrence. Faulkingham's statement was not the
result of "coercive official tactics." Faulkingham, 156 F. Supp.
2d at 67 (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting Byram, 145
F.3d at 407). There was no deliberate misconduct by the MDEA
agents here. There was no misleading or manipulation by the
government, as was true in Byram. The findings of the magistrate
-17-
judge and the trial judge give us no reason to think that the
agents deliberately failed to give the warning in order to get to
the physical evidence or that they did so to get to another witness
who might or might not incriminate Faulkingham. The agents'
negligence resulted in the suppression of Faulkingham's confession,
itself a detriment to the agents, who conceded at the suppression
hearing that they did not administer the Miranda warning, and that
they should have done so.
In fact, Faulkingham himself started talking without much
questioning. Agent Hutchings requested Faulkingham's cooperation,
but Faulkingham, on his own, began to give the agents the
information about Mark Power. When Faulkingham told the agents the
crucial information that he must make the call to Power in the next
few minutes, the agents were not even in their car with
Faulkingham. They were in the process of searching Faulkingham's
car, and Faulkingham got their attention because he wanted to speak
to them.
The facts of this case also do not raise any of the
concerns that are typically raised under other constitutional
provisions that do trigger the fruits doctrine: there is no Fourth
Amendment violation and no violation of the right to counsel. In
addition, there is nothing to shock the conscience of the court and
no fundamental unfairness. We do not say what the appropriate
remedy would be if the facts surrounding the Miranda violation
involved some of these other concerns or a very strong need for
-18-
deterrence. Perhaps the Supreme Court will address those facts
before we need to do so.
We do hold, on the facts here, that Faulkingham's far
weaker argument for recognition of a deterrence interest for
suppression of derivative evidence arising from a negligent
violation of his Miranda rights is insufficient to carry the day.
Accordingly, we reverse the grant of the suppression
motion and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion. So ordered.
-19-