United States v. Dussault

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 96-1257

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

DENNIS L. DUSSAULT,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.

Edward F. St.Onge on brief for appellant.

Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Andrew J. Reich,

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

December 30, 1997

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the submissions by the

parties and the record in this case, and we affirm the

judgment of conviction. Appellant Dennis Dussault

("Dussault") contends statements he made to an ATF agent

should not have been admitted into evidence, because 1) he

was never warned of his constitutional rights pursuant to

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and 2) his counsel

was not present while he made the statements in question.

Neither argument has merit. Miranda applies only when a

suspect is subjected to a "custodial interrogation." United

States v. Ventura, 85 F.3d 708, 710 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing

Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990)). Under no

version of the facts could the exchange between Dussault and

the ATF agent be characterized as an "interrogation." For

the same reason, counsel's absence during the initial

exchange between Dussault and the agent did not violate

Dussault's constitutional rights. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462

U.S. 1039, 1044-45 (1983) (counsel's absence during

interrogation violates suspect's constitutional rights if

suspect has not knowingly and intelligently waived right to

counsel); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286

(1991); 18 U.S.C. 3501(d).

Dussault's remaining points on appeal are waived due to

the failure to fully brief those issues. United States v.

Pierro, 32 F.3d 611, 621 (1st Cir. 1994).

-2-

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.

-3-