Suggestion Not Custodial Seizure

A suspect was not in police custody, and did not need to be Mirandized, just because officers suggested that it would be a good idea for him to come with them and to be honest.

 

Spencer v. United States, 2016 BL 63376, D.C., No. 13-CF-0085, 3/3/16

     The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes would have felt free to leave regardless of the officers' statements, because he "was still permitted to use his cell phone, he was never handcuffed, and he was told multiple times that he was not under arrest."

     Just because officers told the suspect that he "needed" to come with them to the station and later said "if  you want to walk out of here, you got to be honest" does not mean that the suspect was in custody. Because he was not in custody he did not need to be read his Miranda rights. The police did not assert authority to get his compliance, rather, it seemed that the suspect's decision to go with his girlfriend to the station was "precipitated by his desire to support his girlfriend."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Spencer_v_United_States_No_13CF0085_2016_BL_63376_DC_Mar_03_2016_/1?1458312772

Police Officer's Statement Leads Court to Require Miranda Warning.

A suspect should have been given Miranda warnings because of the coercive nature of the remarks made to the suspect's companion.

 

Broom v. United States, No. 13-CF-1423

    Police entered the apartment of a woman and her infant to investigate about a bullet hole in a shared wall. The mother's friend, the defendant, was in the apartment with them. When the police saw the bullet hole in the wall they handcuffed the couple, but stated that they were not  under arrest. The police believed that there was a gun in the apartment and had restrained the couple for the officers' safety.

   The defendant and the woman denied the presence of a firearm in the house. Without giving Miranda warnings, a police officer told them that, if a firearm was found in the house, both the defendant and the woman would be placed under arrest and the city's child protection agency would take the child away.  This caused the mother to plead with the defendant to tell the officers the location of the gun. The defendant did so, and was later found guilty of illegal possession of the gun.

  The Appellate court understood the police officer's remark about the woman losing custody of her child to be "highly coercive" and the type of remark that would indicate to a person that they were in "custody."

   Even though the record did not establish who the parents of the child were, the court still found that the statement was still coercive. The court stated that "the officers reasonably would have known that their statement was likely to have a strong coercive effect on Mr. Broom, either directly if the child was Mr. Broom's or in any event indirectly through Ms. Hagans."

  The court concluded that the police stating that they were looking for a gun in the house, the woman believing that the defendant knew where it was, together with the use of handcuffs and the coercive statement about the child, "would have contributed to a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Broom was no longer merely the subject of an investigatory detention."

  When a police officer's statements and actions reasonably lead someone to believe that they are in custody, that person should be given their Miranda warnings.


http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Broom_v_United_States_No_13CF1423_2015_BL_193469_DC_June_18_2015_