## Facts

- Boatswain’s Mate First Class Ernest M. Ramos’s wife entered a civilian agreement to start a marijuana-growing business under Washington law; she later withdrew due to cost.
- A civilian associate allegedly threatened the couple, including stating he would appear at Ramos’s workplace; Ramos reported the threat through his chain of command.
- The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) interviewed Ramos to assess the reported threat.
- During the interview, Ramos described the marijuana business and stated his name was not on related paperwork.
- As questioning continued, CGIS agents began to suspect Ramos of marijuana-related offenses under the UCMJ.
- Despite their suspicion, the agents chose not to give Article 31(b) warnings because they feared Ramos would stop answering questions.
- The agents continued asking questions about the marijuana business that they understood could elicit incriminating responses.
- The agents’ interview notes were later used as a basis for an Article 107 false official statement charge.
- At trial, Ramos moved to suppress the unwarned statements; the military judge denied the motion.
- A special court-martial convicted Ramos of conspiracy (Article 81), false official statements (Article 107), and marijuana possession with intent to distribute (Article 112a); the Coast Guard CCA dismissed two false-statement specifications but otherwise affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 31(b), UCMJ, warnings were required once CGIS agents began to suspect Ramos of an offense during an interview that began as a threat-reporting inquiry.
2. Whether the agents’ continued “general” questions about the marijuana business constituted interrogation or a request for a statement from a suspect about the suspected offense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held Ramos was entitled to Article 31(b) warnings once CGIS agents suspected him of UCMJ offenses and continued questioning likely to elicit incriminating responses.
- The court ruled the military judge erred by denying the motion to suppress Ramos’s unwarned statements.
- The court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with suppression of the unwarned statements.
- Judge Stucky dissented.

## Legal Principles

- Article 31(b) warnings are required when: (1) a person subject to the UCMJ, (2) interrogates or requests any statement, (3) from an accused or a person suspected of an offense, and (4) the statement concerns the offense of which the person is accused or suspected.
- The duty to warn depends on the circumstances at the time of questioning, not the interview’s initial purpose; warnings are required once investigators suspect the interviewee of an offense and continue questioning about that suspected misconduct.
- Questioning framed as “general” or “background” may still be interrogation for Article 31(b) purposes if it is likely to elicit incriminating responses about suspected offenses.
- Investigators’ deliberate decision to withhold Article 31(b) warnings despite recognized incrimination risk supports suppression when the statutory conditions are met.
- Statements obtained in violation of Article 31(b) must be suppressed when their admission results in prejudice.

## Conclusion

C.A.A.F. held that when an interview begins as a threat assessment but investigators come to suspect the servicemember of UCMJ offenses and continue questioning about that suspected misconduct, Article 31(b) warnings are required; failure to warn required suppression and warranted partial reversal and remand.


United States v. Ramos, 76 M.J. 372 (C.A.A.F. 2017)