Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Dutton-Myrie

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 24, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LUIS ANTONIO DUTTON-MYRIE, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: (judge Caputo)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court is Defendant Luis Antonio Dutton-Myrie's motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to authorities following his arrest. (Doc. 32.)

On November 7, 2007, Defendant, an illegal alien, was indicted for post-deportation re-entry into the United States without the permission of the Secretary of Homeland Security in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557. (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed the present motion to suppress on March 22, 2008. (Doc. 32.)

Defendant filed this motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers because he was not advised of his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ("VCCR"), a treaty signed by the United States of America. Defendant argues that the Government violated sections of the VCCR which require that non-United-States citizens be advised that they are allowed to communicate with their consulate upon arrest and that their consulate be notified of the arrest in a timely manner. See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, art. 36, ¶¶ 1(b) and 1(c), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. Analogizing the VCCR to his Miranda rights, Defendant claims that because he was not advised these rights, his statements should be suppressed.

Defendant's argument, however, is contrary to precedent. Suppression of statements due to a violation of Article 36 of the VCCR is a disproportionate and inappropriate remedy and is not provided for by law. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006); Malave v. Brooks, Civ. A. No. 07-1990, 2008 WL 513729, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2008). Because this is a question of whether the law provides a remedy for Defendant and not a question of fact, a hearing for Defendant's motion to suppress is not warranted in this case. Therefore, Defendant's motion to suppress will be denied.

NOW, this ___24____ day of July, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.

A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge

20080724

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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