United States v. Henry Guice, Jr.

── United States v. Henry Guice, Jr. ── Case No.: 24-13110 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 24, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13110 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 1 of 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13110 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HENRY GUICE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cr-00379-RAH-SMD-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Henry Guice, Jr., appeals his drug-related convictions, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the self-incriminating statements that he made to law USCA11 Case: 24-13110 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 2 of 16 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13110 enforcement without being advised of his rights under Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). After review, we affirm. I. Background A federal grand jury indicted Guice on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Thereafter, Guice filed a motion to suppress the self-incriminating statements he previously made to police. He argued that, as a public employee of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) when the drugs were discovered, an ADOC administrative policy required him to cooperate with the underlying investigation or risk facing discipline, including possible termination of employment, and the police failed to inform him that as a public employee he had a right against self-incrimination under Garrity. Accordingly, he maintained that his statements were coerced and involuntary. Following the government’s response, a magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Guice called W.D. Favor, an investigator with the law enforcement service division of the ADOC, as a witness who testified to the following. Favor’s division investigated criminal activity within the ADOC, while the separate Inspector General’s Office division handled administrative investigations or discipline cases. On June 20, 2023, a K-9 unit at Alabama’s Staton Correctional Facility notified Favor that a dog had “made a hit” on Correctional Officer Guice’s car in the prison’s USCA11 Case: 24-13110 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 Page: 3 of 16 24-13110 Opinion of the Court 3 parking lot. A search of the car revealed narcotics and drugs were also found on Guice’s person. Guice was placed in handcuffs and transported to Favor’s office for questioning.1 Upon arrival at Favor’s office, Favor removed the handcuffs and read Guice his Miranda 2 rights, and Guice signed the form waiving his Miranda rights. Favor explained that he never told Guice that he had to speak with him. Favor testified that, at the time of the investigation, he was generally familia