The defendant’s probation officer conducted a search of his house supported by reasonable suspicion. (R. at 3.) During the search, the probation officer discovered items commonly used to make counterfeit money. (Id.) The following morning Officer Ronald Mac went to the defendant’s house to serve him with an arrest warrant for production of counterfeit money. (R. at 6.) Once Officer Mac arrived, he knocked on the door and announced his …show more content…
(R. at 1, 5.) First, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the search, arguing his Fourth Amendment right was violated when the probation officer conducted the property search. (R. at 1.) Second, the defendant moved to suppress the statement made to Officer Mac regarding his social security number, arguing the government violated the Fifth Amendment by procuring the statement before administering the Miranda warnings. (R. at 5.) The district court denied both motions to suppress. (R. at 1, 6.)
At trial, the government introduced evidence from the search of the defendant’s house and defendant’s statement of his social security number was used to prove the social security fraud charge. (R. at 1, 7.) As it turned out, the social security number the defendant provided to Officer Mac was different than the number Reynolds had been supplying on his various applications. (R. at 8.) The defendant was convicted of both producing counterfeit currency and social security fraud. (R. at 1,