A K-9 unit at Alabama’s Staton Correctional Facility alerted on Correctional Officer Henry Guice, Jr.’s car in the prison parking lot. A search revealed narcotics in the vehicle and on Guice’s person. He was handcuffed and transported to the law enforcement division’s office, located about a quarter mile off prison grounds. Investigator W.D. Favor removed the handcuffs, read Guice his Miranda rights, and Guice signed a waiver. Favor never told Guice he had to speak. Guice initially denied knowing how the drugs got into his car. After detailing his movements, he asked, “If I resign, I ain’t going to be fired?” Favor responded that resignation was “something totally different from what I do, but yes, you can resign.”
When Guice grew frustrated and said he did not want to answer more questions, Favor reiterated that Guice could stop at any time and had the right not to talk. Favor explained that Guice was “going to jail today” regardless. Guice said he thought he would get a chance to resign first. Favor clarified that resignation had “nothing to do with the criminal part,” that Guice’s employment had “nothing to do” with Favor, and that Favor was a police officer handling “the criminal side of things.” Guice ended the interview. Favor left to complete paperwork. About fifteen minutes later, Agent Charday Jackson informed Favor that Guice wanted to talk again.
Jackson testified that after Guice terminated the first interview, he asked her “what the process was.” She explained that Favor was securing warrants and Guice would be transported to jail. Guice again asked about resigning. Jackson reiterated what Favor had said — that they were solely concerned with the criminal investigation, while the administrative investigation would be handled by the inspector general’s office. Guice “hung his head,” expressed concern about his arrest airing on the news and upsetting his ill mother, and said he had just been trying to take care of her. Jackson advised that if he wished to make a statement, she would get Favor. Guice indicated he wanted to talk. In the second interview, Guice admitted he had been bringing drugs into the prison for an inmate known as “Country” in exchange for money for several months. After the assistant warden spoke with Guice, Guice resigned. Favor then resumed the interview, and Guice identified the inmate from a photo lineup.
Guice moved to suppress his statements, arguing they were coerced under Garrity v. New Jersey. Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) Administrative Regulation 208 required employees to “[c]ooperate with investigations to include, but not limited to, providing information or verbal/written statements.” Violations could result in discipline “from a warning all the way up to dismissal,” with the Commissioner possessing ultimate discretion. Guice testified that he believed if he refused to participate, he would be fired. He admitted he understood being handcuffed was associated with a crime, but testified he still thought the criminal and administrative investigations were “the same” because Favor was “ADOC” and “an investigation is an investigation.”
A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denying suppression by issuing an report and recommendation (R&R). The magistrate judge found that Guice’s testimony was not credible by applying the two-part test from United States v. Smith — where no direct threat of termination exists, the employee must show (1) subjective belief he would be fired unless he gave a statement, and (2) that belief was objectively reasonable. The magistrate judge noted Guice’s testimony “seemed rehearsed,” was inconsistent with statements made during the interview, and that he never mentioned Regulation 208 or any fear of termination during the interviews themselves. Rather, he “seemed eager to resign” and “never mentioned any desire or expectation to keep his job.”
Alternatively, per the magistrate judge, even if Guice’s subjective belief were credited, it was not objectively reasonable. Guice was handcuffed and taken to an off prison grounds law enforcement building — objective indicators of a criminal investigation. Favor informed Guice of the criminal charges and his Miranda rights, told him multiple times he did not have to speak, explained that the criminal investigation had “nothing to do” with his employment, and ceased the first interview when Guice invoked his right to remain silent without any mention of job discipline. The magistrate judge distinguished Guice from McKathan v. United States, where a probationer faced automatic revocation of supervised release if he did not answer questions.
The district court overruled Guice’s objections and adopted the R&R. Guice entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal. He was sentenced to 75 months’ imprisonment followed by 60 months of supervised release.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the district court’s credibility determination was entitled to near-total deference unless “contrary to the laws of nature” or “so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.” Guice did not meet that high bar. Absent a subjective belief of termination, his Garrity claim necessarily failed.
United States v. Guice, 2026 WL 809620 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).