U.S. Supreme Court 02-22-12
by: Abassos • February 21, 2012 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new case:
- Jail Isn't Always "Custody" for Miranda
Whether a person is "in custody" or not, for Miranda purposes, does not turn on whether the person is in jail or prison. So says the U.S. Supreme Court in a new opinion.
In this case, defendant was serving jail time. He was summoned to a visiting room and interrogated for 5 to 7 hours about a different crime. He ultimately confessed. He was never read Miranda or told that he didn't have to speak with the deputies. He was told more than once that he was free to leave. The upshot of the opinion is that there is no categorical rule regarding what is or is not custody:
In sum, our decisions do not clearly establish that a prisoner is always in custody for purposes of Miranda whenever a prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct outside the prison.
Justice Alito, writing for the majority reasons that a person serving time is not automatically the sort of custody with which Miranda is concerned because:
- The shock of being arrested is not present for a person already in jail.
- The person knows, in any case, that after the interrogation is over, custody will continue. That is, custody is unrelated to the interrogation.
- The interrogating officers don't have authority over the person's release.
Rather than a categorical rule, courts should look to the individual circumstances of the interrogation to determine whether "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave."
In this case, defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Defendant testified that "I was told I could get up and leave whenever I wanted." Further, defendant was not physically restrained or threatened. In fact, he was given food and water. And, the door to the conference room was left open.
Justice Ginsburg writes the opinion for the 3 dissenters who would have found that defendant was in custody. Defendant did not feel free to leave and had very good reason to feel that way. He was taken against his will to the interrogation. He told the officers, more than once, that he didn't want to speak with them. He wasn't given his evening medications. And he was questioned long into the night by armed officers. For the dissent, the standard would be whether there was "an incommunicado interrogation in a police dominated atmosphere." Howes v. Fields ||
Article I, Section 12 of the Oregon Constitution has it's own body of cases about when a person is in compelling circumstances such that Miranda like warnings are required. However, "The Oregon constitutional test is comparable to the test for determining whether a person is in custody for Fifth Amendment purposes, and Oregon courts have approached the two questions using the same analysis." State v Warner, 181 Or App 622 (2002). In other words, the new S.Ct. opinion may very well be persuasive, though not binding.
