USA v. Camacho

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RAY NOEL CAMACHO, SR.,
Defendant.
4:21-CR-40042-LLP
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Ray Noel Camacho, Sr. is before the court on a superseding
indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and
conspiracy to commit money laundering. 	See Docket No. 28. 	Mr. Camacho
has filed a pro se motion to suppress statements he made to investigators on
May 16, 2019, and June 3, 2019.1 See Docket No. 61. 	The United States
(“government”) resists the motion only in part. 	See Docket No. 95. 	This matter
has been referred to this magistrate judge for holding an evidentiary hearing
and recommending a disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Rule 57.11.
The basis for Mr. Camacho’s motion to suppress his statements was that
he was in prison, and therefore in custody, but government agents did not
1 Mr. Camacho has chosen to represent himself in these proceedings.
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 100 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966),
before interrogating him. 	See Docket No. 61.
The government agrees, and for that reason, concedes that
Mr. Camacho’s statements should not be admissible in the government’s case
in chief. 	Docket No. 95. 	However, the government asserts that Mr. Camacho’s
statements were voluntary. 	Id. 	As such, the government posits it should be
allowed to use Mr. Camacho’s statements to impeach him should he testify at
trial in a way that is contrary to what he stated to the government agents who
interviewed him. 	Id. 	(citing United States v. Baftiri, 263 F.3d 856, 857 (8TH
Cir. 2001); United States v. Rowley, 975 F.2d 1357, 1361 (8TH Cir. 1992); and
United States v. Garreau, 735 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1167 (D.S.D. 2010)).
At a hearing in open court, Mr. Camacho stated he had received and read
the government’s response to his motion. 	Mr. Camacho stated he understood
that the government was reserving unto itself the right to use his statements
for impeachment should Mr. Camacho testify. 	Mr. Camacho stated he was in
agreement with the position set forth by the government. 	Specifically,
Mr. Camacho did not allege that his statements were involuntary.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the record herein and Mr. Camacho’s response in
open court to the government’s position, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that Mr. Camacho’s motion to suppress [Docket No.
61] be granted in part and denied in part. 	The court recommends that
Mr. Camacho’s statement be unavailable to the government in its case in chief.
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 100 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
However, should Mr. Camacho testify in his own defense, the court
recommends the government be allowed to use Mr. Camacho’s prior statements
for impeachment.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The parties have fourteen (14) days after service of this report and
recommendation to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. 	Failure to file timely
objections will result in the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
Objections must be timely and specific in order to require de novo review by the
district court. 	Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black,
781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1986).
DATED this19TH day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 100 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>