United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS BOOKING STATEMENT
Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge
the court is defendant Danny Veloz's motion to suppress a
statement that he made while being booked after his arrest in
Lawrence, Massachusetts on September 28, 2012. Specifically,
Veloz seeks to suppress a telephone number that he gave to a
Lawrence police officer and an agent of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) during the booking process. Veloz argues
that his response to the question asking for his telephone
number was not voluntary as he was not apprised of his
so-called Miranda rights until after the booking was
very premise of the motion is mistaken. The collection of
biographical information as part of the booking process falls
within a long- recognized exception to Miranda.
See Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 601 (1990)
(plurality opinion) (specifying name, address,
height, weight, eye color, date of birth, and current age).
Consequently, no prior administration of Miranda
warnings is required. See United States v. Duarte,
160 F.3d 80, 82 (1st Cir. 1998) (routine standard-form
questions about such things as occupation and employment do
not require Miranda warnings); see also United
States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375, 378 (11th Cir. 1983)
(“[E]even though that information turns out to be
incriminating, . . . we find that a government agent's
eliciting biographical information, such as an address and
telephone number, for the non-interrogative purpose of
identification is not a confession under §
3501(e).”); United States ex rel. Hines v.
LaVallee, 521 F.2d 1109, 1112-1113 (2d Cir. 1975)
(proper to ask identifying information at booking without
warnings); United States v. Prewitt, 553 F.2d 1082,
1085-1086 (7th Cir. 1977) (same); Rosa v. McCray,
396 F.3d 210, 221-222 (2d Cir. 2005) (immaterial that a
defendant's answers to booking questions prove
incriminating in some respects); State v. Banks, 370
S.E.2d 398, 402-403 ( N.C. 1988) (immaterial that a
defendant's response was later used to prove an element
of the crime). Cf. Commonwealth v. Acosta, 416 Mass.
279, 284 (1993) (defendant's admission that he lived in
the apartment where the drugs were found was not prejudicial
- evidence other than mere presence established
booking information exception does not extend to
incriminating questions that are not normally part of the
booking (or bail) process. Muniz, 496 U.S. at
598-599 & n.13 (question calculated to test a
defendant's sobriety); United States v. Downing,
665 F.2d 404, 406-407 (1st Cir. 1981) (police asked suspect
for the keys and location of his drug-ferrying airplane).
Cf. United States v. Webb, 755 F.2d 382, 388-389
(5th Cir. 1985) (jailer's query, “What kind of s___
did you get yourself into?” was not a question normally
attendant to custody). In this age of the ubiquitous cellular
phone, a person's telephone number is as much a part of
his identity as is his name, address, and date of birth.
Consequently, I see no reason to treat a request for a
telephone number at booking any differently than the
elicitation of the routine types of identifying information
that courts have long found to lie within the Muniz
exception to Miranda.
foregoing reasons, the motion to suppress is DENIED.
 The Lawrence Police booking sheet does
not include a space for an arrestee's telephone number,
although the DEA Personal History Report Form DEA-202 (which
was compiled simultaneously) does.
 According to the government, Veloz had
volunteered the same telephone number to law enforcement
several months before his arrest. See
Gov't.'s Mem. at 5 n.3.
 While Veloz implies that the question
about his telephone number was asked with the anticipation
that it might prove probative of his involvement in the
alleged conspiracy, Def.'s Mem. at 8, the subjective
intent of an officer asking Miranda-exempt questions
central to the booking and pretrial process has no ultimate
bearing where there is no direct link between the question
and the suspected offense (as in the case of a home telephone