United States of America v. Andy Naikai

Salt Lake City, Utah criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with two counts of abusive

sexual contact with a child while within Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 2244(c) & 1153,

and one count of abusive sexual contact with a child age 12-16 while within Indian

country, 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3) & 1153.



The Defendant moved to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement.





"The lack of a police advisement that the suspect is at liberty to decline to answer questions or free to leave is a significant indication of a custodial detention.” United States v. Griffin, 7 F.3d 1512, 1518 (10th Cir. 1993). But we have been clear that the police advisement factor is not dispositive. It is "only one factor to consider.” United States v. Guillen, 995 F.3d 1095, 1109 (10th Cir. 2021). If this factor were dispositive in every case, it would displace other factors which we have consistently deemed relevant to the custody analysis. Thus, although the lack of police advisement here favors a finding of custody, our focus remains on the totality of the circumstances because we cannot "pick[] some facts and ignor[e] others.” Jones, 523 F.3d at 1240.

Motion granted.



Reversed on appeal.