Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Berckmann

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

April 6, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW BERCKMANN, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING IN PART HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

          Susan Oki Mollway United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION.

         Berckmann, invoking Local Rule 60.1(c), asks the court to reconsider its order granting in part and denying in part his motion to suppress statements. Berckmann argues that the court manifestly erred in failing to suppress two sets of statements that Berckmann made to law enforcement officers on October 18, 2017. He asks the court to suppress both statements as having been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966). The court determines Berckmann's request is now moot with respect to one set of statements. With respect to the other set, the court is unpersuaded by Berckmann's argument and declines to suppress any additional statements.

         II. BACKGROUND.

         Berckmann filed a motion to suppress on January 30, 2018. ECF 31. In a written order issued on March 28, 2018, this court granted in part and denied in part the motion to suppress. ECF 111. Most of the pertinent background is set forth in that order and is incorporated by reference.

         On April 3, 2018, Berckmann filed a motion for partial reconsideration. ECF 117. He asks the court to suppress two exchanges that its previous order declined to suppress. Berckmann identifies these exchanges by reference to the order's findings of fact “W” and “FF, ” which are as follows:

W. After his phone conservation, Fulgium returned to Berckmann and said: “This is the deal. You can't be here in the campground arguing loud with your wife, putting your hands on your wife, threatening your wife, okay. You also can't be here in this campground drinking to the excess that you drink, okay. Because I've got reason to believe the fact that you crawled out of the tent the way that you did and just the way your eyes look, that you're a danger to yourself or someone else, okay.” Berckmann interrupted Fulgium at various points to deny that there had been an argument and that he had put his hands on J.F.
FF. . . . A few minutes later, Berckmann once again demanded that Fulgium explain why he was being arrested. The two had the following exchange:
Berckmann: I'm still going to jail. For what? So I really would like to know how the law can wrongfully arrest people. . . .
Ranger Fulgium: You understand what those two people told us when we got there?
Berckmann: What did they tell you?
Ranger Fulgium: They told us that you were straddling her with a knife.
Berckmann: But I was not.
Ranger Fulgium: We had two people tell us that, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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