United States District Court, S.D. California
ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.
Before this Court are seven discovery motions filed by the Parties. The Court will address each motion in tum.
I. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Defendant's Confession
Defendant moves to suppress his confession, made beyond six hours after his arrest but before presentment, because he argues the Government unreasonably delayed in bringing him before a judge. (Doc. No. 32.)
A. Six Hour Safe Harbor
A confession made within six hours after arrest is not inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person before a judge. 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c). Where a confession is made outside of the six hour period, the confession may be admissible where the trial judge finds the delay reasonable after considering "the means of transportation and distance to be traveled to the nearest available magistrate judge[.]" ld.
According to Defendant, he was arrested on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, at 5:22 pm. He was driven to police headquarters in downtown San Diego, California at 6:00 pm and placed in a holding cell. He was given Miranda warnings at 11:34 pm-six hours and twelve minutes after he was arrested. He was interviewed for approximately one hour and twenty minutes. He confessed sometime between 11:34 pm and 1:00 am.
The confession took place outside of the six hour safe harbor here because the delay was not due to means of travel or distance to the magistrate judge. Thus, the Court must determine whether the delay was "unreasonable or unnecessary." Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 322 (2009).
B. Reasonable Delay
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a), "[a] person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless the statute provides otherwise."
The McNabb-Mallory rule generally renders inadmissible any confession made during detention that violates the defendant's right to prompt presentment provided in Rule 5(a). Corley, 556 U.S. at 308. If "the confession occurred before presentment and beyond six hours, ... the court must decide whether delaying that long was unreasonable or unnecessary under the McNabb-Mallory cases, and if it was, the confession is to be suppressed." ld.
There are three categories of reasonable delays apart from transportation, distance, and availability of a magistrate judge: (1) delays for humanitarian reasons; (2) delays due to the unavailability of government personnel and judges necessary to completing the arraignment process; and (3) delays necessary to determine whether the suspect should be criminally charged. United States v. Valenzuela-Espinoza, 697 F.3d 742, 752 (9th Cir. 2011). Courts should be "careful not to overextend McNabb-Mallory's prophylactic rule in cases where there [is] a reasonable delay unrelated to any prolonged interrogation of the arrestee." United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding the delay due to shortage of personnel necessary to process defendant and determine whether he should be charged was reasonable).
In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), two defendants were arrested in the middle of the night and were questioned for two days before they were brought before a judge and before formal charges were brought against them. A third defendant was detained and questioned continuously for nearly six hours. It was only the incriminating statements made during this prolonged questioning that supported a charge and conviction against them. The McNabb court held that the police detention of the defendants beyond the time that a judge was readily accessible constituted "willful disobedience of law."
In Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), the court suppressed a confession made seven hours after arrest where the police questioned the suspect for hours, all the while they were ...