Miranda - Compelling Circumstances
by: D hubner • June 21, 2010 • no comments
Miranda warnings are required when a defendant is either in full custody or in "compelling circumstances." This post summarizes how the courts determine whether compelling circumstances exist.
The overall question is whether the officers created a "police-dominated atmosphere" such that a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would've felt compelled to answer questions. State v. Roble-Baker, 340 Ore. 631, 641 (2006). Roble-Baker lays out four factors to be considered: (1) The location of the encounter; (2) The length of the encounter; (3) The amount of pressure exerted on the defendant; and (4) The defendant's ability to end the encounter. This is a very case-specific inquiry - no single factor is dispositive, and courts must look at "the totality of the circumstances." State v. Werowinski, 179 Ore. App. 522, 533 (2002).
For location, the defendant's familiarity with the surroundings is key. An interview in a police station, for example, weighs in favor of compelling circumstances, while an interview in the defendant's home weighs heavily against. See State v. Shaff, 343 Ore. 639, 646 (2007). But, "This is not to say that questioning that occurs in a person's home can never be compelling." Id.
The length of the encounter seems to be the least important factor - its significance depends entirely on the other "surrounding circumstances." Werowinski at 530. When a defendant was asked to sit in the back of a patrol car, 10-15 minutes was long enough to make the situation more compelling. Id. But when a defendant voluntarily invited plainclothes officers into his home, a long 1.5-hour questioning was not seen as making the situation more compelling. State v. Saunders, 221 Ore. App. 116, 119 (2008).
There are many specific facts which are relevant to the amount of pressure exerted on the defendant. Being interviewed by plainclothes officers is less compelling than being interviewed by uniformed, armed officers. See State v. Soen, 132 Ore. App. 377, 385 (1995); In re Newell, Ore. App. 140, 145 (2001). Being questioned by multiple officers is more compelling than a one-on-one questioning. See State v. Bush, 203 Ore. App. 605, 611 (2006). The presence of other civilians (e.g. a spouse or parent) during questioning makes it less compelling. See State v. Carlson, 311 Ore. 201, 205 (1991); Newell at 145. The demeanor of the questioning officers is also important: It weighs against compelling circumstances if the officers are "polite and nonconfrontational." State v. Schwerbel, 233 Ore. App. 391, 395 (2010). It makes the situation more compelling if the officers are aggressive, and especially if they claim to know the defendant is lying. See State v. Machain, 233 Ore. App. 65, 75-76 (2009); State v. Shirley, 223 Ore. App. 45, 49-50 (2008). Finally, a situation is made more compelling if officers confront the defendant with incriminating evidence (See McMillan at 68), or ask questions "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" (See Schwerbel at 399).
As to the final factor, the courts don't treat a defendant's inability to leave as compelling in itself. When there's no actual physical restraint and the encounter is "no more coercive or lengthy than a typical traffic stop," inability to leave is not compelling. Shaff at 647. But it gains importance when combined with other compelling factors. For example, a defendant's inability to leave contributed to compelling circumstances when the officer also confronted him with an incriminating third-party statement, and told him he might be going to jail. McMillan at 68.
