Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-4_24-cr-00002-0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
NO. 4:24-CR-00002-WMR-WEJ-1
NON-FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS [15]
The grand jury charged Defendant, Jason Bradley Patterson, as follows:
On or about October 3, 2019, in the Northern District of
Georgia, the defendant, JASON BRADLEY PATTERSON, did
knowingly possess at least one visual depiction that had been shipped
and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, by any means,
including by computer, the production of which involved the minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which visual depiction was
of such conduct in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
2252(a)(4)(B).
(See Indict. [1].)
Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence and Statements
[19]. The undersigned conducted an evidentiary hearing on said Motion on January
7, 2025 [21], which has been transcribed [25] (hereafter “Tr.”). During submission
of post -hearing briefs, defendant abandoned that part of his Motion seeking to
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JASON BRADLEY PATTERSON,
Defendant.
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 1 of 14
2
suppress tangible evidence pursuant to claimed violations of his Fourth
Amendment rights. (Def.’s Br. [27] 1.) This leaves only the Motion to Suppress
Statements for the Court to resolve. As discussed below, the evidence shows that
defendant was provided his Miranda rights, he waived them knowingly and
voluntarily, and he subsequently made statements voluntarily and without coercion.
Therefore, the Motion to Suppress Statements should be DENIED.1
I. RELEVANT FACTS
Edward Leon is a corporal with the Bartow County Sheriff’s Office. (Tr. 3-
4.) Since about 2015, he has worked as an undercover member of the Bartow-
Cartersville Drug Task Force. (Id. at 4.) In 2019, Corporal Leon began an
investigation into Mr. Patterson after a confidential informant identified him as a
heroin seller. (Id. at 5-6.) With the help of that informant, the Task Force set up
two controlled purchases of heroin from Mr. Patterson at a mobile home at 24
Allatoona Landing on September 17 and 23, 2019. (Id. at 6-9.)
About a week later, officers executed a search warrant of that mobile home,
where they arrested the residents and found heroin as well as mail and a credit card
1 The Government has indicated that it may not use the statements at issue
here, which relate to drug trafficking, in the instant prosecution of defendant for
possession of child sexual abuse material. (Tr. 66.)
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 2 of 14
3
belonging to Mr. Patterson. (Tr. 9-11.) Before searching the residence, officers
had obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Patterson, whom they expected to find in the
mobile home. (Id. at 11.) The warrant was issued by a Bartow County magistrate
judge, dated October 1, 2019, for the offense of the sale of heroin. (Id. at 11-13;
see also Gov’t Ex. 1 (arrest warrant).)
Officers continued to search for Mr. Patterson and located him at another
home (7 Terry Lane) on October 3, 2019. (Tr. 14-16.) Officers entered the home
with permission of the owner and went to the back bedroom where the owner
indicated Mr. Patterson would be found. (Id. at 16-17.) When no one answered,
officers forced open the door and found defendant “relaxing on the bed with [a]
female . . . waiting for us to open the door.” (Id. at 17, 67 .) Officers saw drug
paraphernalia in plain view and arrested Mr. Patterson. (Id. at 18.) Officers placed
Mr. Patterson in handcuffs because he was under arrest pursuant to the
aforementioned warrant. (Id. at 19, 66.)
A. On-Scene Interview
Corporal Leon interviewed Mr. Patterson on the scene of his arrest for just
over 13 minutes. (Gov’t Ex. 2 (video of interview); see also Tr. 22.) Corporal
Leon began by reading Mr. Patterson his Miranda warnings off of a written card.
(Gov’t Ex. 2 at 0:01- 0:20; see also Tr. 19.) Mr. Patterson acknowledged that he
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 3 of 14
4
understood his rights by nodding his head. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 0:01-0:20; see also Tr.
19-20.) When Corporal Leon asked defendant if he wanted to answer questions,
Mr. Patterson asked, “May I ask questions too?” and Agent Leon said that he could,
but reminded Mr. Patterson that he (Leon) was not the one in custody. (Gov’t Ex.
2 at 0:30-0:55; see also Tr. 19-20.) Mr. Patterson said he did not want to disrespect
the officer but did not know what was going on. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 0:55 -0:59.)
Corporal Leon then explained to Mr. Patterson that he was in handcuffs because of
the multiple warrants for the sale of heroin and that they had raided his mobile
home. (Id. at 0:59-1:08.) Mr. Patterson responded, “Right, the guy that was there
was, I guess, doing that.” (Id. at 1:08-1:13.) Corporal Leon explained that he was
not going to waste time with Mr. Patterson if he was going to play ignorant or lie;
informed him that the Task Force had video recordings of him selling heroin to his
agent; and told Mr. Patterson he could only help him with his case if he cooperated
and told the truth. (Id. at 1:13-1:57.) Mr. Patterson indicated that he was scared,
but Agent Leon said, “I’m five -foot-five, I’m not really scary .” Mr. Patterson
laughed and said, “You’re scary.” (Id. at 2:00-2:08; see also Tr. 23-24, 68.)
After about a minute of silence from Mr. Patterson, Agent Leon said, “I
know for a fact you’re selling heroin, do you have any heroin in this house?” Mr.
Patterson shook his head in the negative. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 2:54-3:00.) Corporal
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 4 of 14
5
Leon asked, “All you have is needles?” and defendant nodded. (Id. at 3:01-3:04.)
Mr. Patterson reaffirmed, “There’s nothing in this house.” (Id. at 3:04 -3:20.)
Asked if there was anything in his truck, Mr. Patterson said, “No.” (Id. at 3:20-
3:22.)
Throughout the remaining ten minutes of the video, Mr. P atterson provided
verbal or physical responses to all of Corporal Leon’s questions, at times with
reluctance. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 3:22-13:22.) For example, Mr. Patterson stated, “I want
to be honest but I don’t want to hurt myself.” (Id. at 3:52 -3:54.) D efendant
explained why he didn’t open the door when the officers announced themselves.
(Id. at 3:55-4:18.) When Mr. Patterson asked Corporal Leon how he could help,
he replied that he was the one who would determine what charges he would face.
(Id. at 4:58-5:03.) Mr. Patterson then asked, “What do you want me to do?” and
the Corporal replied, “I want the facts, who you’re buying your heroin from, who
you’re selling your heroin to.” (Id. at 5:03-5:29.) Mr. Patterson then explained
that a guy he used to work for stays at his house, has heroin, and he helps that guy
sell it; Mr. Patterson knew that this guy had been busted at his house, which was
owned by defendant’s mom but occupied by Mr. Patterson for the last seven years.
(Id. at 5:30-5:50, 6:08-7:17.)
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 5 of 14
6
Defendant further discussed the extent of his role in selling heroin. (Gov’t
Ex. 2 at 7:18 -8:49.) During the interview, Mr. Patterson’s phone rang and he
looked at it and said, “It’s my mother,” and asked to answer, but Corporal Leon
said that he could speak to her afterwards. (Id. at 7:36-7:52; see also Tr. 71.) Mr.
Patterson expressed his conflicted feelings about helping the police but getting
himself into trouble. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 5:51-5:57.) Defendant confirmed that the
phone Corporal Leon had removed from his pocket belonged to him. (Id. at 12:11-
12:16; see also Tr. 72.)
In d escribing the on-scene interview during the evidentiary hearing,
Corporal Leon said that Mr. Patterson was “very serious” and said he “wasn’t
combative, but he wasn’t happy.” (Tr. 19.) He also described Mr. Patterson as
“very groggy, a little bit,” and that he could “understood him, but he was mumbling
his words.” (Id. at 23.) Corporal Leon believed that Mr. Patterson was “definitely
under the influence” of heroin but he appeared coherent. (Id.) He closed his eyes
at several points during the interview. (Id. at 65.)
During the interview, Corporal Leon’s firearm was holstered and not
brandished or used to threaten defendant. (Tr. 20.) No physical force, threats, or
promises were made to Mr. Patterson. (Id. at 21.) Corporal Leon confirmed that
he told Mr. Patterson that he could only help himself if he told the truth, and that
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 6 of 14
7
he (Leon) would make some decisions about charging him. (Id. at 21, 70.) The
Corporal did not raise his voice or yell at defendant. (Id. at 23.)
According to the Corporal Leon, Mr. Patterson never expressed any feelings
of duress. (Tr. 24.) He also never asked to speak to a lawyer. (Id. at 24-25.)
Defendant also never asked to stop talking to the Corporal or sought to end the
interview. (Id. at 25.) Because he felt a good rapport with Mr. Patterson, Corporal
Leon decided to cease the interview at the scene and continue it later a t the jail.
(Id.)
B. Jail Interview
Officers transported Mr. Patterson to the Bartow County Jail. (Tr. 25.) The
next day, Corporal Leon continued his interview of Mr. Patterson in a private room
with another agent present. (Id. ; see also Gov’t Ex. 3 (video of interview) .)
Corporal Leon again advised Mr. Patterson of his Miranda rights, which like before
defendant acknowledged by nodding his head. (Tr. 25-26; see also Gov’t Ex. 3 at
0:32-0:58.) Mr. Patterson indicated he would answer Corporal Leon’s questions
by nodding his head. (Tr. 26; see also Gov’t Ex. 3 at 0:58-1:01.) For the next 18
minutes, Corporal Leon asked Mr. Patterson additional questions about the drug
activity at his house and his relationship with his co- conspirator, and defendant
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 7 of 14
8
provided verbal or physical responses to all of his questions. (Gov’t Ex. 3 at 1:02-
19:18.)
During this second interview, Mr. Patterson never asked to speak to a lawyer.
(Tr. 26.) He also never asked to stop talking to Corporal Leon or sought to end the
interview. (Id.) In describing defendant during his testimony at the evidentiary
hearing, Corporal Leon relayed that he was “very sleepy.” (Id. at 72,) He also
noted that Mr. Patterson appeared sick and was feeling unwell, likely based on his
previous heroin use; he mumbled even more than the previous day and was
yawning. (Id. at 72-73.)
II. ANALYSIS
A two- part inquiry determines the admissibility of a confession or self -
incriminating statement. First, Miranda warnings “ are required before any
statement may be admitted into evidence at trial which was elicited from a person
in custody through interrogation.” Endress v. Dugger, 880 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th
Cir. 1989). Thus, a court must determine whether Miranda warnings were provided
and if they were validly waived. A defendant validly waive s his Miranda rights
only if the totality of the circumstances shows both of the following: (1 ) an
uncoerced choice and (2) an awareness “of both the nature of the right being
abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Moran v. Burbine,
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 8 of 14
9
475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986). “Waiver may be established even absent formal or
express statements of waiver. ” United States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-CR-22 -RLV,
2014 WL 793359, at *9 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 25, 2014). “ In fact, ‘a suspect who has
received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda
rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the
police.’” Id. (quoting Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 388-89 (2010)).
Second, even where the Government has complied with the requirements of
Miranda, the Court must consider whether the confession or self -incriminating
statements were voluntary. United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d 1512, 1516 (11th Cir.
1994) (per curiam); United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375, 378 (11th Cir. 1983) (per
curiam). The Court must examine the “totality of the circumstances, including the
details of the interrogation and the defendant’s characteristics” when determining
whether statements were volunta ry. United States v. Bernal- Benitez, 594 F.3d
1303, 1319 (11th Cir. 2010). “The determinative question asked is whether there
has been police overreaching.” United States v. Bercoon, No. 1:15-CR-022-LMM-
JFK, 2016 WL 9404865, at *8 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2016), R. & R. adopted, 2017 WL
3151291 (N.D. Ga. July 24, 2017). Factors the Court must consider include “the
defendant’s intelligence, the length of his detention, the nature of the interrogation,
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 9 of 14
10
the use of any physical force against him, or the use of any promises or inducements
by police.” Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1253 (11th Cir. 2003).
With regard to the first prong of the inquiry, the undersigned reports that
Corporal Leon read Mr. Patterson the Miranda rights, defendant acknowledged that
he understood those rights, and that he “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”
waived those rights. Moran, 475 U.S. at 421. Hearing testimony and videotape
evidence reflects that the Corporal spoke in a calm and conversational tone to
defendant and answered his questions. Moreover, Mr. Patterson indicated that he
understood his rights as they were read to him, he agreed to speak with the officer,
and he never revoked that waiver. After Corporal Leon administered the Miranda
rights, Mr. Patterson nodded that he understood his rights and indicated that he was
willing to talk. Defendant’s express oral statement waiving his rights is strong
proof of the validity of that waiver. See North Carolina v. Butler , 441 U.S. 369,
373 (1979).
With regard to the second prong of this inquiry, the undersigned reports that
Mr. Patterson’s post-Miranda statements were voluntary and not the result of police
overreaching. There is no evidence that defendant was of low intelligence; he had
only been in custody of law enforcement for a few minutes when the Miranda rights
were shared with him; the nature of the interrogation was low key and lacked any
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 10 of 14
11
coercion; and the interviews were short (i.e., each less than 20 minutes) .
Additionally, Corporal Leon made no promises or inducements to defendant.
Mr. Patterson nevertheless contends that he was under the influence of
heroin and that his condition prevented him from making a voluntary waiver of his
rights. The test of whether a person is too affected by alcohol, drugs, or pain to
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights is one of
coherence and an understanding of what is happening. See United States v. Martin,
434 F.2d 275, 279 (5th Cir. 1970) (holding confession properly admissible where
evidence supported finding that, while defendant had been drinking and was
affected by alcohol to some degree, his faculties were not so impaired that he did
not understand what was going on nor was he incoherent); see also United States
v. Adamson , No. 04 -672, 2008 WL 167299, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008)
(collecting circuit court cases focusing on defendant’s coherence and
comprehension, and finding that anxiety and pain medication did not impair the
defendant’s ability to make a valid Miranda waiver).
Intoxication only renders a waiver unknowing or unintelligent when the
defendant was “so affected as to make his statement, after appropriate warnings,
unreliable or involuntary.” United States v. Elliott, No. 1:19 -CR-002784-LMM-
JSA, 2021 WL 4236641, at *6 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2021) (internal quotation marks
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 11 of 14
12
and citation omitted), R. & R. adopted, 2021 WL 3400704 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2021)
(quotation omitted). Even when law enforcement testifies that a defendant
appeared to be under the influence, the key question is whether the evidence shows
“that [defendant] had insufficient mental capacity to understand his Miranda rights
and the consequences of waiving them, or to voluntarily waive those rights. ”
United States v. Harris, No. 4:11 -CR-18-HLM-WEJ, 2011 WL 5514003, at *7
(N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2011), R. & R. adopted, 2011 WL 5514058 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10,
2011).
Here, despite Mr. Patterson’s apparent i ntoxication, the hearing testimony
and the videotape evidence supports a finding that he was coherent and cognizant
of the situation when he waived his Miranda rights and then spoke with Corporal
Leon. He had sufficient mental capacity to understand his Miranda rights and the
consequences of waiving them, and to voluntarily waive those rights. Mr. Patterson
was able to interact with the officer, follow instructions, and respond timely and
appropriately to Corporal L eon’s instructions and questions both at the on -scene
interview and the interview at the Jail. Although Mr. Patterson mumbled, yawned,
or sometimes closed his eyes, he did not fall in and out of consciousness.
Corporal Leon believed that Mr. Patterson was under the influence of drugs;
during the on-scene interview. He also noted that defendant was not looking well
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 12 of 14
13
at the Jail the next day, likely because of heroin side effects . H owever, he
continued both interviews, and it was lawful for him to do so because the
videotapes of both interviews show that, while defendant was occasionally
mumbling or lethargic, he appeared to understand the questions, he gave logical
answers to them, and he spent time reflecting whether he should answer questions
as he weighed the risks of cooperation. See United States v. Taylor, No. CR424-
051, 2024 WL 5319177, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 4, 2024), R. & R. adopted, 2025 WL
73260 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2025) (“The Court finds it difficult to imagine a more
compelling demonstration of a defendant ’s knowing waiver of his rights” than
defendant’s “consideration, out loud, of the various risks of agreeing to the
interview over the course of more than five minutes.”).
Na rcotics have varying effects on people depending on how much they
consume or their history of drug consumption. Thus, Mr. Patterson’s bare claim
that he was intoxicated at the time of his first interview or sleep deprived at his
second does not invalidate his Miranda waiver or make his statements involuntary.
See United States v. Taylor , 508 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1975) 2 (“The mere fact
2 The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit
decisions handed down before the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 13 of 14
14
that the defendant had taken drugs prior to giving the statement does not render it
inadmissible. The evidence must show the defendant was so affected as to make
his statement, after appropriate warnings, unreliable or involuntary.”); see also
United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783, 788 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Sleeplessness, alcohol
use and drug use are relevant to our analysis, but [i]ntoxication and fatigue do not
automatically render a confession involuntary.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Considering the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Patterson made two
un
coerced, knowing, and voluntary waivers of his Miranda rights, followed by
voluntary, uncoer ced statements to Corporal Leon. Accordingly, defendant’s
Motion to Suppress Statements should be denied.
III. CO NCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements [15] be DENIED.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 20th day of March, 2025.
Case 4:24-cr-00002-WMR-JHR Document 29 Filed 03/20/25 Page 14 of 14