## Facts

- A woman traveling under the name “Sandra Calzada” arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport from the Dominican Republic and presented a U.S. passport in that name.
- A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer ran the manifest against a criminal database and found an outstanding arrest warrant for a “Sandra Calzada” whose identifying data matched the passport.
- The officer referred the traveler to secondary inspection; she was escorted to a separate room by an armed guard and was not free to leave.
- During secondary inspection, the officer asked biographical questions (name, citizenship, place and date of birth) and whether she had ever been arrested; she answered consistently with the passport and denied any prior arrest.
- The officer took fingerprints, which did not match those associated with the warrant subject.
- The officer located a prior passport application record and observed that an earlier application contained a different photograph than the one used for the current passport and renewal application.
- When asked about the older photograph and additional family and residence-history questions (with translation assistance), the traveler gave answers the officer viewed as inconsistent with the historical passport data.
- The secondary-inspection questioning lasted about 90 minutes.
- The government charged the defendant with passport/identity-related offenses, and she moved to suppress her secondary-inspection statements on the ground that she was interrogated in custody without Miranda warnings.

## Issues

1. Whether questioning of a traveler in border secondary inspection constituted “custodial interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings.
2. Whether the defendant’s unwarned statements during secondary inspection had to be suppressed.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to suppress.
- The court held that Miranda warnings were not required because the questioning was part of routine border inspection inquiries directed to identity and admissibility rather than a criminal investigative interrogation.
- The defendant’s statements to the CBP officer during secondary inspection were admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation; not every detention or restriction on movement constitutes Miranda custody.
- Routine border-entry questioning to determine identity and entitlement to enter may be conducted without Miranda warnings even if the traveler is not free to leave during the inspection.
- Questioning remains outside Miranda’s scope when it is undertaken as part of the border inspection function (identity/admissibility verification) rather than primarily to obtain evidence for criminal prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court treated the defendant’s 90-minute secondary-inspection interview as routine border questioning aimed at confirming identity and admissibility, not custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes, and therefore refused to suppress the defendant’s unwarned statements.


United States v. FNU LNU, 261 F.R.D. 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)