United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Sanfilippo, Defendant, represented by Bobby E. Bailey, SIMS
Plaintiff, represented by Tracy L. Berry, OFFICE OF U.S.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
NANNETTE A. BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
above matter was referred to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b). Defendant
Maria Sanfilippo is charged in the Superseding Indictment
with Making False Statements to a Bank, Aggravated Identity
Theft, Making False Statements in Connection with a Social
Security Application, and Making a False Statement in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1001, 1014 and 1028A, and 42 U.S.C.
Â§ 1383a(a)(2). [Doc. #57.] On August 11, 2016, the
undersigned held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. #40]. Defendant was
represented by Attorney Bobby E. Bailey and the Government
was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Tracy L.
Berry. The undersigned will make the following findings of
fact and conclusions of law with regard to Defendant's
Motion to Suppress.
previously pled guilty to one count of Aggravated Identity
Theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1028A and, on September 19,
2013, was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment and
one year of supervised release and ordered to pay $52, 966.00
in restitution (Case No. 4:13-CR-75 JAR).
on supervised release, Sanfilippo completed and signed a Net
Worth Statement dated September 13, 2015. (Ex. 1.) Sanfilippo
testified that she received the form before meeting with her
probation officer, Anthony Gremaud, and that she filled out
part of it at home and part of it at the Probation Office
with the help of Gremaud and his supervisor Julie
O'Keefe. A section of the form asks the respondent to
list any trust assets, including "all trusts to which
you are a grantor or donor [the person who establishes the
trust], the trustee or fiduciary [who controls the trust
assets and income or the beneficiary who has or will receive
benefits from the trust]." On Sanfilippo's Net Worth
Statement, the words "trustee" and "who
controls the trust assets" are underlined and the words
"fiduciary, " "beneficiary, " and
"will receive benefits" are crossed out. Her Net
Worth Statement lists "The Joseph Sanfilippo Living
Trust" under "Name of Trust/Taxpayer ID#, "
"Unknown" under "Value of Trust, " and
zero under "Your Annual Income from Trust" and
"Your Interest in Trust Assets." Joseph Sanfilippo
is Defendant's deceased father.
addition to her Net Worth Statement, Sanfilippo made verbal
statements to Gremaud to the same effect: that she is a
trustee of her father's trust but does not receive a
benefit from it. Their meetings took place at the Probation
Office and Sanfilippo was never placed in handcuffs.
testified that Gremaud was aware of the investigation that
led to this case and that he harassed her regarding the
identity of the trust beneficiaries in an effort to move the
investigation forward, threatening her with revocation if she
did not disclose the beneficiaries. Gremaud testified that
the Net Worth Statement was a routine form provided in the
ordinary course of business to defendants who owe restitution
so that the Probation Office can evaluate their financial
situation and determine an appropriate payment level. He
further testified that he was not aware of any investigation
regarding her father's trust at the time Sanfilippo
submitted the form. According to Gremaud, his questions to
Sanfilippo about the trust were unrelated to any
investigation, but rather due to the fact that Sanfilippo
disclosed to him that the trust had purchased a houseboat and
a vehicle for her. The undersigned finds Gremaud credible.
of the Superseding Indictment charges Sanfilippo with falsely
stating on her Net Worth Statement that she does not have any
interest in the assets of the Joseph Sanfilippo Living Trust,
a trust established by her father, Joseph Sanfilippo, during
his lifetime. The indictment alleges that, after her
father's death, Sanfilippo placed assets in the trust and
used them for her own benefit. Sanfilippo seeks to suppress
her Net Worth Statement and her statements to her probation
officer regarding the trust, arguing that they were taken in
violation of her Miranda rights.
Miranda applies to custodial interrogations.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct.
1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Interrogation is
questioning "that the police should know [is] reasonably
likely to elicit an incriminating response." Rhode
Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682,
1689, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). "Requests for routine
information such as name and address, which is necessary for
basic identification purposes, is not interrogation for
purposes of Miranda. " United States v.
Jones, 266 F.3d 804, 812 (8th Cir. 2001). A probation
officer who seeks "routine identification
information" as a part of the officer's "normal
fact-finding responsibility, " for example in a
presentence interview, is not required to give
Miranda warnings. Id .; see also United
States v. McLaughlin, 777 F.2d 388, 392 (8th Cir. 1985)
(pretrial services officer's request for place of
employment and home address made because employment and
length of residence in the community are factors properly
considered in determining whether to detain or release a
criminal suspect pending trial did not constitute
Sanfilippo's probation officer credibly testified that
obtaining the Net Worth Statement and questioning Sanfilippo
regarding her father's trust were part of his normal
duties as a probation officer and unrelated to any
investigation. The undersigned finds that Sanfilippo was not
subject to interrogation and therefore her statements
regarding the trust were not taken in violation of
Miranda.Jones, 266 F.3d at 812. The
undersigned further finds that, even if Sanfilippo was
interrogated, she was not "in custody" for
Miranda purposes. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465
U.S. 420, 429 n.5, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1143, 79 L.Ed.2d 409
(1984) (probation interview was non-custodial where
probationer was not under arrest, was free to leave at the
end of the meeting, and was not held in police custody or by
the police themselves ...