[As noted here some months ago, Point of Law will from time-to-time reprint cases summarized by other sources. The following cases are recent 10 th Circuit opinions as reviewed by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Legal Division]:

(Reprinted from The Informer, FLETC Legal Division, December, 2025)

United States v. Nahkai
No. 24-4058 (10th Cir. 2025)

Andy Nahkai answered the door on February 10, 2022, and found himself talking to a Navajo Nation investigator and an FBI Special Agent. The agents wanted to question Nahkai about allegations of sexual abuse made by a family member and suggested they do so in their vehicle, rather than inside the home with Nahkai’s wife within earshot.

Nahkai followed the officers to an unmarked pickup truck which had two indicia of law enforcement—a radio control and a rifle rack—and seated himself in the passenger seat. He was never handcuffed or touched by the officers in any way, and the vehicle was unlocked for the duration of the interview, which lasted approximately 41 minutes.

Shortly after the start of the interview, the FBI agent asked pointed questions about why the minor family member did not live at the home any longer. Nahkai explained that Social Services removed the minor because she reported his wife for physical abuse and him for sexual abuse, and the agent immediately began asking confrontational questions about “massages” Nahkai received from the minor that could have been considered sexual abuse. After Nahkai admitted the massages were of an intimate nature, the agent said, “Alright, well uh, I think we’re gonna talk with [Nahkai’s wife] here for just a second now if that’s alright. You’re good to go inside.”

Once Nahkai returned to his home, the agent and investigator followed up with a later arrest. Nahkai was charged with two counts of abusive sexual contact with a child while within Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 2244(c) & 1153, and one count of abusive sexual contact with a child age 12-16 while within Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3) & 1153, based on his statements.

Nahkai moved to have his statements suppressed, arguing that he was not given any Miranda warnings during what he perceived to be a custodial interview. The government, however, argued that Nahkai was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda, and he gave voluntary statements in an unlocked police vehicle parked outside of his home where he was free to leave (and did so).

The district court ruled the statements inadmissible, based on several factors, including: 1) whether officers advised the suspect that he was not required to answer questions and/or that he could terminate the interview; 2) the nature of the questioning; and 3) whether police dominated the atmosphere of the encounter. While the district court relied heavily on the first factor, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, noting that the failure of the agents to tell Nahkai he could end the interview and leave was only one of many factors to consider.

Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit found the other factors to outweigh any failure to inform Nahkai he was free to end the interview and leave. These factors include: 1) the vehicle remained unlocked; 2) Nahkai could look down and see that the vehicle was unlocked; 3) Nahkai was never searched, handcuffed, or touched; 4) Nahkai was the first to mention sexual abuse; and 5) Nahkai sat in the passenger seat of the vehicle without any physical restraints. The court concluded that a reasonable person in Nahkai’s position would not have understood the situation as the “functional equivalent of formal arrest” and he was not “in custody” for Miranda purposes. Because he was not entitled to a Miranda warning, the agent’s questions did not present a Fourth Amendment issue and, as such, they were voluntary statements and admissible at trial.

United States v. Tyler
No. 24-6035 (10th Cir. 2025)

Oklahoma City Police officers were conducting surveillance for a wanted person, Karen Gonzalez, and spotted her as the passenger of a vehicle in a local gas station parking lot. When she exited the vehicle, officers ordered her and the driver, Jonas Tyler, to show their hands and walk backwards towards the officers. Gonzalez was handcuffed, brought to a curb, and sat calmly for the rest of the encounter. Gonzalez was placed under arrest for her outstanding warrant, but Tyler had no relation to her case, nor did he have any warrants of his own.

Without suspicion he was involved in any crime, officers handcuffed and extensively patted Tyler down, confiscated his phone, and placed him in the back of a police car.

Police officers asked for consent to search Tyler’s car and he refused; he was left in the back of the police car for approximately fifteen additional minutes while officers waited for a narcotics officer and a canine. The canine conducted a sniff of Tyler’s vehicle and alerted to the presence of narcotics. Officers then searched the car and recovered a firearm and six grams of suspected fentanyl pills. Tyler was subsequently charged with a state law violation for possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, entered a conditional plea to the single-count indictment, and reserved the right to appeal on the issue of suppression.

On appeal, Tyler argued that officers may not extend a detention to conduct a sniff absent reasonable suspicion that some crime is afoot, even if such a sniff would be otherwise permissible. Thus, he claimed his continued detention after Gonzalez had been handcuffed and arrested was unreasonable because he was not dangerous and officers had no reason to suspect a crime had been, was being, or would be committed. The government disagreed, stating that the delay was reasonable because Gonzalez had not yet been patted down by a female officer, as required by department policy.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Tyler’s argument, noting the government’s only interests were arresting Ms. Gonzalez and doing so safely. Once Gonzalez was handcuffed and confined to an area of the officer’s choosing, Tyler should have been allowed to leave the scene even if officers were waiting for a female officer to conduct a pat-down. By keeping Tyler detained for the sole purpose of allowing a canine handler to arrive and conduct a sniff of his vehicle, officers violated Tyler’s rights and any evidence discovered against him from that point on must be suppressed.