What Is Required for Police Custody so That Miranda Applies?

Our office is frequently told that police officers or loss prevention officers (in a shoplifting case) who spoke to the client failed to “read me my rights.”  The client or potential client then asks if this means the case will be dismissed.

The answer depends upon whether police were involved, whether there was a “prolonged detention” of the client and the adequacy of the “reading of the rights,” if for example police gave some warning to the suspect.

This article will address one of these three requirements: that the suspect be in some form of a prolonged detention, often referred to as being in custody.  This generally means being formally arrested or being restrained in one’s freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest.  Thompson v. Keohane (1995) 516 U.S. 99, 112, 116 S. Ct. 457; California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S. Ct. 3517.
 
The test to decide if the restrain is sufficient to trigger the Miranda admonition is whether the totality of the circumstances would cause “a reasonable person to believe he was in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom.”  People v. Chutan (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283.  The “ultimate inquiry” is whether “a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.”  People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401, quoting Thompson, supra.

The test depends upon the objective circumstances, not the subjective views of the person being questioned.  Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S. Ct. 1526.  Some of the objective factors considered are, under People v. Bejasa (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 26, 36:
  1. The site or location of the interrogation;
  2.  The objective indicia of arrest, i.e. is one handcuffed or locked in a cell;
  3. Absent formal arrest, the length of the detention;
  4. The ratio of officers to suspect; and
  5. The demeanor of the officer, including the nature of the questioning.
When a juvenile is involved, consideration of the age of the suspect is appropriate, as long as the suspect’s age was known to the officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer.  J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) 564 U.S. 261, 277, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 2404.    The Ninth Circuit, a federal court covering cases in California, has similarly noted the following factors as considerations, too (U.S. v. IMM (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 754, 765):
  1. The language used to summon the suspect (i.e. cussing);
  2. The extent to which the subject is confronted with evidence of guilt;
  3. The physical surroundings of the interrogation;
  4. The duration of the detention; and
  5. The degree of pressure applied to detain the suspect.
There are dozens of cases deciding what is a detention and what is not.  Perhaps one that epitomizes the degree to which a court will uphold the police decision not to give Miranda warnings is U.S. v. Crawford (9th Cir., 2004) 372 F.3d 1048, 1059.  In this case, police went to a parolee’s house and detained him, however, the court held that the detention ended when the suspect agreed to go to an FBI office for questioning.  Once there, because he was repeatedly told he could just leave whenever he wanted, the questioning did not amount to a custodial interrogation, so his statements were admissible despite no Miranda warning.

The best thing someone can do to try to suppress a statement made without Miranda warnings is to read ten or more cases on when a court does and does not suppress such statements, as there are dozens, if not hundreds of cases on this issue.  The attorney should try to analogize the pending case to past cases where a judge found the circumstances sufficient to require such a warning and argue, consequently, that in the pending case such a warning was improperly neglected or omitted.

Contact us.
 
Client Reviews
Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well.
★★★★★
Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him. S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards, L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help. V.L., Carson
★★★★★
Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot. C.R., Pomona
★★★★★