United States v. Nahkai.
No. 24-4058. 6/3/2025. D.Utah. Judge Kelly. Law Enforcement Interviews—Miranda Advisement—Custodial Interrogation—Motion to Suppress.
June 3, 2025
Nahkai’s wife’s niece made allegations of sexual abuse about Nahkai. FBI Agent Girod and Navajo Criminal Investigator Nez went to Nahkai’s home to investigate the allegations. Agent Girod and Investigator Nez each drove his own unmarked vehicle to Nahkai’s home. Investigator Nez wore a dark shirt with a law enforcement star and had a visible weapon on his right side, while Agent Girod wore civilian clothing and carried a concealed firearm. When the officers arrived, Nahkai’s wife was standing at the front gate, and she spoke with Investigator Nez before allowing the officers to enter the property. Nahkai then came outside, and Investigator Nez asked him in Navajo if they could talk to him. Nahkai sat in the passenger seat of Agent Girod’s truck where the officers interviewed him. Before Nahkai got into the truck, neither officer asked him if he had weapons, handcuffed him, or touched him, and Nahkai was not told whether he was or was not under arrest. Neither officer gave Nahkai Miranda warnings, and Nahkai was not told that he could terminate the interview or decline to answer questions or that he was required to stay and answer questions. Both officers’ weapons remained holstered at all times relevant to this appeal. Nahkai admitted that his wife’s niece touched his penis on two occasions but maintained throughout the questioning that she was responsible for the contact by either slipping her hand or initiating the encounters. Nahkai was charged with two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child in Indian country and one count of abusive sexual contact with a child age 12–16 while within Indian country. The district court granted Nahkai’s motion to suppress statements that he made to law enforcement, finding dispositive that (1) the officers failed to notify Nahkai that he was free to leave, (2) the questioning was accusatory in nature, and (3) the police dominated the encounter.
On appeal, the government argued that the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress because when officers interviewed Nahkai he was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and therefore his statements were voluntary. The government asserted that the district court gave too much weight to the fact that the officers did not explicitly advise Nahkai that he could refuse to speak with them. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, in assessing whether an interrogation is custodial, the court considers the totality of the circumstances, including the factors in United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 1235, 1240 (10th Cir. 2008): (1) whether officers advised the suspect that they were not required to answer questions and/or that they could terminate the interview, (2) the nature of the questioning, and (3) whether police dominated the encounter. As to the first factor, the officers never advised Nahkai that he could refuse to speak with them, so the district court properly concluded that this factor weighs in favor of finding that Nahkai was in custody. As to the second factor, the Tenth Circuit considered the length of the questioning, the substance of the questions and whether they were accusatory, and whether the tone was threatening. Here, Nahkai was questioned for approximately 41 minutes, which is not so long as to render it coercive; the questioning was what one would expect during police questioning and was not so coercive as to make a reasonable person understand that they were effectively under arrest; and the questioning remained calm and conversational. Lastly, a police-dominated atmosphere did not exist because Nahkai was questioned in an unlocked vehicle outside his home, was not touched, entered and exited the vehicle by himself, acquiesced to the interviews, was not subjected to strong-arm tactics, and was not arrested when the interview ended. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances, Nahkai was not in custody and Miranda warnings were not required, and the district court erred in granting the suppression motion.
The order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.