United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
was charged in an Indictment with one count of threatening a
law enforcement officer with the intent to impede,
intimidate, and interfere with the officer while he was
engaged in the performance of his official duties, and with
the intent to retaliate against the officer on account of the
performance of his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 115(a)(1)(B), and one count of making a false,
fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Statements. Defendant moves to suppress his alleged false
statement and threats on the ground that the Deputy United
States Marshals who arrested him did not inform him of his
Miranda rights. The Court conducted a Suppression
Hearing on November 30, 2017. For the reasons that follow,
the Court denies defendant's Motion.
States District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe issued a civil arrest
warrant for defendant on August 28, 2017. Comp. ¶ 5.
Carrying out the warrant, three Deputy United States Marshals
went to arrest defendant on August 29, 2017, at the Advanced
Urgent Care ("AUC") facility at 5058 City Avenue,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Comp. ¶ 5.
the Marshals - Thomas Gabriel and John Grandison - entered
the AUC facility and recognized defendant. Comp. ¶ 7.
The two Marshals went with defendant to defendant's
private office. Suppression Hr'g Tr. 38:22-39:8, Nov. 30,
2017. After the Marshals showed defendant the warrant, which
named Mehdi Nikparvar-Fard, defendant pointed to the warrant
and said, "That's not me." Hr'g Tr.
40:2-12. Defendant thereafter produced a driver's license
bearing the name "Mehdi Armani." Hr'g Tr.
41:19-24; Comp. ¶ 8. The Government charges that when
defendant said, "That's not me, " he made a
false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
the Marshals did not believe defendant's statement that
he was not Mehdi Nikparvar-Fard, they handcuffed him and put
him in their vehicle. Hr'g Tr. 42:15; Comp. ¶¶
8- 10. In the vehicle, defendant used profanities directed at
the Marshals and made statements that the Government charges
were threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
Comp. ¶ 11. Specifically, in the conversation with the
Marshals, and without solicitation from the Marshals,
defendant said, "[Y]our face will be with me all the
time, ok, we will see each other, don't worry about that,
we will see each other." Nikparvar-Fard Arrest
Transcript 2 at 2; Comp. ¶ 11. In response, Deputy
United States Marshal Johannes Jarkowsky, who recorded the
incident on his cell phone, asked defendant, "Is that a
threat?" Nikparvar-Fard Arrest Transcript 2 at 2; Comp.
¶ 11. After some back and forth between Deputy Marshal
Jarkowsky and defendant, defendant said, "[F]or somebody
at my scale to come and threaten you. Is that what you think,
if I want to do that, I pay a ni-er like this guy five grand
to put a fucking bullet in your head if I wanta to do
that." Nikparvar-Fard Arrest Transcript 2 at 3; Comp.
¶ 11. According to Deputy Marshals Jarkowsky and
Grandison, defendant gestured at Deputy Marshal Grandison,
who is African American, when he said, "I pay a ni-er
like this guy." Comp. ¶ 12; Hr'g Tr. 47:3-4.
filed a Motion to Suppress Statements, arguing that the Court
should suppress defendant's alleged false statement and
alleged threats. Legal arguments in support of this Motion
were set forth in a separate filing, Defendant's Omnibus
Response to Pending Legal Issues. The Government filed
Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to
Suppress Statements. This Motion was presented to the Court
at a Suppression Hearing on November 30, 2017. The Motion is
thus ripe for review.
defendant in a custodial interrogation is entitled to the
protections of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution as the Supreme Court expounded in Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966). The government can
introduce incriminating statements made by a defendant during
a custodial interrogation only if the defendant is warned of
his constitutional rights to remain silent and to an attorney
and the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his
rights. Id. A defendant is in custody when, given
the circumstances, "a reasonable person [would] have
felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the
interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane,
516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). Furthermore, the person in custody
must be subject to an interrogation, which occurs when the
police use "words or actions that the police should have
known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating
response from him." Rhode Island v. Innis, 446
U.S. 291, 303 (1980).
The Fifth Amendment Does Not Protect Statements Which Are
Crimes in and of Themselves.
Government argues that the exclusionary rule, which precludes
the admission of evidence collected in violation of a
defendant's constitutional rights, does not apply when
the statements themselves constitute charged criminal