A federal judge blocked the government last month from using some of a defendant’s statements as evidence, reasoning that the defendant made them involuntarily as Colorado Springs officers tased him five times and one officer threatened to kill him.

Officers responded one morning in June 2025 to a theft call from a plumbing store in the 3000 block of Mallard Drive. The staff said a man and a woman were the culprits, although they referred to the woman as the one who stole the items. One employee took a photo of the suspects, which he showed to an officer.

Around 20 minutes later, Officer Ryan Paine located Anthony Miranda and Samara Yingling-Winbush within a mile of the store. Paine told them about the theft and said they “kind of look like you might match the description.” Seeing metal pipes protruding from a bag, Paine added that the thieves took “what you guys have there.”

Paine asked some questions, ran a background check on them, and said he was detaining them. When Paine and another officer tried to handcuff Miranda, he ran. The officers chased him and tased him at least five times.

When Miranda was on the ground, one officer, identified as “Officer Kirby,” put the barrel of his gun on Miranda’s head and threatened to kill him.

Officer Daniel Mork confiscated items from Miranda, including a gun. Miranda spoke to Mork about his experience with the legal system, his “equal rights to protect myself,” and said he “didn’t even know” the gun was there.

At the police vehicle, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision, Mork informed Miranda of his rights to silence and to consult with an attorney. Miranda made incriminating statements about the gun.

A federal grand jury indicted Miranda for being a felon in possession of a firearm. El Paso County prosecutors charged Yingling-Winbush with a misdemeanor for theft, but dismissed the charge after she pleaded guilty in a different case to a more serious offense.

Miranda moved to bar prosecutors from using the handgun and his statements as evidence against him, arguing Paine did not have reasonable suspicion to believe anyone but Yingling-Winbush stole from the plumbing store at the time Paine detained them. He also argued that he had not voluntarily given up his right to silence under the circumstances.

“Just before Mr. Miranda made the statements to Officer Mork, he had been tased, tackled, and threatened with a gun to his head. Under these circumstances his statements cannot be said to be voluntary,” wrote attorney David R. Jones.

After a hearing at which Paine and Mork testified, U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez partly agreed with the defense.

In an Aug. 24 order, Martínez wrote that Paine had reasonable suspicion to detain Miranda and probable cause to arrest him, given what he knew about the thieves and Miranda’s proximity to the stolen merchandise.

Martínez also took no issue with Miranda’s statements to Paine before his detention or his statements to Mork after he received a Miranda warning. Instead, Martínez found “stage 2” to be problematic, referring to the chase and arrest involving multiple officers.

During stage 2, “the events unfolded quickly, Officer Kirby pulled out his gun, the officers placed Miranda face down in the dirt after he had fallen, and none of the officers Mirandized Miranda,” wrote Martínez. By that time, “the officers here had already tased Miranda at least 5 times, and most notably, Officer Kirby threatened to kill Miranda while pressing the barrel of his service weapon to Miranda’s head. Surely from Miranda’s perspective, having already been tased multiple times and tackled to the ground by several officers, followed by the threat to be killed on the spot by one of those officers, any semblance of a noncoercive or nonthreatening character to the encounter with law enforcement had long since vanished.”

Because Miranda’s statements were involuntary in stage 2, Martínez suppressed them as evidence.

Shortly after Martínez’s order, Jones moved to convert Miranda’s upcoming jury trial to a bench trial. The government did not oppose the request, but Martínez refused to cancel the jury trial.

“Defendant has provided the Court with no reason or rationale whatsoever for wanting to forgo a jury trial,” he wrote on Aug. 27, adding that a jury would be “best positioned to determine the credibility of the law enforcement officers who testified at the hearing on Defendant’s motion to suppress, those being Officers Paine and Mork.”

On Monday, Jones notified Martínez that the defense and the government had reached a plea deal. Martínez will accept Miranda’s guilty plea later this month.

The case is United States v. Miranda.