Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Edmo

April 09, 1998

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DEL EDMO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



D.C. No. CR-96-00006-1- BLW

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (Boise) B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 3, 1998 Seattle, Washington

Before: Arthur L. Alarcon and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges, and Rudi M. Brewster,* District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Alarcon

FOR PUBLICATION

SUMMARY

ALARCON, Senior Circuit Judge:

Del Edmo ("Edmo") appeals from the denial of his motions to suppress the results of a urine test and an incriminating statement made after officers of the Fort Hall Police Depart- ment requested a urine sample. Edmo contends that, in requir- ing him to submit to a urine test, the police violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He further argues that the dis- trict court erred in admitting a statement he made to the police after he requested the presence of counsel during any interro- gation. We conclude that the police did not violate Edmo's constitutional rights by requiring him to provide a urine sam- ple. We also hold that Edmo's statement was volunteered and not the product of police interrogation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Edmo's motions to sup- press the results of the urine test and his incriminating state- ment.

I.

On June 19, 1995, the Fort Hall Police Department received a call regarding gunfire at the residence of Edmo's ex-wife. At the scene, police spoke with Tom Moss, Edmo's ex-father-in-law. Moss told the officers that he had been awakened by a loud noise. While investigating the source of the noise, he observed Edmo and several men at the back of the house. He also noticed that there were bullet holes in the door to the residence. In addition, he discovered that a win- dow and tail light in his car were broken. A .22 caliber shell case was found outside the door of the house.

Five hours later, the police received a report that Edmo was observed driving erratically as though under the influence of some substance. He was arrested that same evening at 11:16 p.m. At the time of Edmo's arrest, the police found a mari- juana pipe on the center console of his car and a .22 semi- automatic pistol in a compartment in the door on the driver's side.

The following morning, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Fort Hall Police Officer Robert Boone attempted to question Edmo. Edmo advised Officer Boone that he wanted an attor- ney present during questioning. Officer Boone immediately ceased questioning Edmo. At 11:20 a.m., Officer Boone returned and told Edmo that he would have to provide a urine sample. At first, Edmo refused. Edmo was advised by Officer Boone that he believed "that there was dissipating evidence in his [Edmo's] urine and due to exigent circumstances he would have to give the urine." Edmo agreed to give the sample but stated "the urine would probably not be clean " because he had been using cocaine and methamphetamine. Edmo's urine sample tested positive for marijuana.

On January 11, 1996, Edmo was indicted on one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm while using a controlled sub- stance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. S 922(g)(3). Trial was set for March 19, 1996. Edmo filed several pretrial motions. On April 12, 1996, the district court denied each motion. Edmo then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the court's denial of his motions to suppress.

The district court sentenced Edmo to 15 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.