Miranda Not Required When Suspect Free to Leave

It is very common for our clients to tell us that police never read his or her “my rights,” which refers to the Miranda warnings.  Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.  Television and movies often show the police reading a suspect such rights to remain silent and that the person has a right to an attorney, etc., under the Fifth Amendment and therefore, our clients believe it is a required procedure in every interaction between police and a suspect.  Is it?

The following summary of an arson case arising in Napa County and later decided by the First Appellate District Court in San Francisco answers this question.

Neighbors of Jordan Buckner noticed a fire at Mr. Buckner’s home at about 7:30 p.m. on November 30, 2019.  The neighbors called the fire department, who rushed to the scene and extinguished the fire.  Mr. Buckner lived alone and no one was in the house when firefighters arrived.

Firefighters determined that the fire started on a bed in the northwest bedroom of the home and was caused by an unknown open flame source that ignited gasoline vapors.  Subsequent testing of clothing samples taken from the bed where the fire started confirmed the presence of gasoline residue.

About 5:00 a.m. on the day following the fire, Mr. Buckner returned to the home and identified himself as the homeowner.  At that time, an arson investigator asked Mr. Buckner if he was willing to be interviewed at the police station.  Mr. Buckner agreed.  Because he did not have a working car at the time, Mr. Buckner was then driven to the police station., sitting in the front seat of an unmarked police vehicle.  

Once at the police station, police took Mr. Buckner to an interview room in the secure area of the police station and closed the door.  Mr. Buckner was not handcuffed.  Police then read Mr. Buckner his Miranda rights and asked him if he understood his rights.  He answered, “not really,” but then stated, “I think I’d like to have a lawyer present.  I mean, you have me on camera.” 

The investigator explained that they always recorded interviews, saying that it was “just how we do . . . all our interviews.”  The investigator then asked Mr. Buckner if he really wanted a lawyer present and Buckner replied, “no, I . . . go ahead . . . you can go ahead with your interview.”  The investigator then confirmed that it was “OK” to talk, reread Mr. Buckner his Miranda rights and then asked again, OK so, with these rights in mind, do you want to speak with me?”  Buckner responded, “Yeah I’ll speak with you.”  

The investigator did not tell Mr. Buckner that he was free to leave the station, but he testified that he spoke to Mr. Buckner in a non-aggressive tone throughout the interview.

He then told police that he was out walking in a local nature preserve when his house caught on fire.  He also stated that his house was in foreclosure because he recently lost his job.  He denied setting the fire and claimed that he was not home when the fire started.  He believed someone broke into his house and set it on fire.  He testified he stopped paying his mortgage and was “waiting for it to foreclose” because he did not want to live in the area anymore.

Mr. Buckner then indicated again that he would like an attorney present.  The investigator ended the interview at that time.

The Napa County District Attorney’s Office charged Mr. Buckner with arson and the jury found him guilty as charged.  On March 16, 2021, the judge sentenced him to three years in state prison and ordered restitution to Mr. Buckner’s insurance company in the amount of $170,651.05 and to the mortgage lender and fire department in amounts to be determined.

In March, 2021, Mr. Buckner appealed on several grounds, but this article will only discuss his second argument, which was that the judge erred by admitting at trial statements he made during a police interview that he claimed were taken in violation of his Miranda rights.  He claimed that once he stated, “I think I’d like to have a lawyer present,” police should have stopped the interview.

The First Appellate District disagreed with Mr. Buckner about his statement triggering a duty for police to stop the interview because the interview was not custodial in nature.  His further statements to police were not admitted in error because the appellate court found that, like the trial court judge found, that the statements were not given in a custodial setting because, under the totality of the circumstances even though the investigator started the interview by reading Mr. Buckner his Miranda rights, Mr. Buckner had the ability to stop the interview – and did so – approximately 15 minutes after it began, reflecting his awareness of his ability to terminate the interview and leave the police station.  

We find this ruling troubling because, we think, the fact that Mr. Buckner did terminate the interview showed he regarded the totality of the circumstances custodial, which is why he wanted it to stop.