were required when the person being interrogated was either in custody at the station house or otherwise deprived of his enough sticking her freedom in any significant way that is what this case is all about and i would say that the it to get past the litigation bar i might as well talk to that first the litigation about how my going to get past that twenty two fifty four d will start there i don't think the i mean very seldom is it so clear that the court of appeal violated not just one but all three of those twenty to fifty four d and by contrary to and i'll cite the case this case is contrary to or roscoe versus texas three ninety four us three twenty four which came down three years after miranda and that's a case where agents came into the person's home and they acted like it was their home interrogated him and the supreme court three years after miranda said this was a custom situation it didn't make any difference so there is the contrary to now the applying applying this is we have we have miranda itself which talked about police dominated atmosphere it doesn't make any difference it doesn't make any difference counting the number of officers that were there what did they do the court of appeal was unreasonable in saying this was not an overly aggressive interrogation anybody being interrogated by these police officers go away that this minister of this church was interrogated would say this is overly aggressive they called her every name in the book they just about call child molester it was in the record your you have your you have your you're like a catholic priest is molesting children he said that you're a liar you're a cheat and the way they did it was that they would ask her questions she would say i don't remember then they would bring out documents and she would say oh yes that's right and then he said see you're corrupt you're a liar you're trying to fool us and all she did was have the same kind of memory that i have so i hope i'm never interrogated that way because i can't i am like a lot of lawyers when i get ready for oral argument i have a bathtub mind i'm filling my ba with facts about this case i have another oral argument here tomorrow i better pull the plug all be arguing the wrong case but the point is i have to have my calendar to find out where i am somebody asked me what i did where i was last week i run from my calendar trying to figure out where i was maybe it's because i have my flock she had her flock or maybe it's just i think a lot of lawyers are that way they have to have their calendar to find out counsel isn't it isn't it the case  that she consented to the interview this happened in her living room she asked for some water at some point i think they let her have that water aren't there are several factors that this would have been consensual  and not not not an interrogation in the same sense older and again she's friendly and we're not talking about consent that's not an issue that is not the issue how much they were and the fact that she said thank you and goodbye she was gracious they weren't this was police dominated at one point well let's face it the police admitted that she asked for a lawyer that's clear and then when they told her she asked for a lawyer an hour before that it ended she said that didn't i ask you for a lawyer any said yes this is in the transcript of the i asked you for an hour question you should have ended yes he said that's my point it should have ended and you know what's sad about this case is that where i might not have been be here i might not even be here if the tarney had made a pretrial motion but he didn't the attorney in this case i know this isn't certified and i'm using valuable time on a non certified issue but i think it's so important that he he didn't jump up in object until after the jury had heard the opening statements with him actually had heard the tape of this entire interview and it was about to be introduced into evidence and then he says oh i object she was custody and none of this should have come in i know and i am quoting him i know it's sort of like the horse is out of the barn excuse me not only was the horse out of the barn but the horse was in the munching hay waiting for the jurors to come in there in the form of that transcript which they all had he was derelict but i asked him to be certified it wasn't randy cohen who did the appeal in this case  a district court case it doesn't make any difference as far as the law is concerned the only difference between craighead and it's ironic that craig had with being interrogated at the same time as regina peele exactly the same day in arizona the same time and i put that in my brain and i said that was a bad day for the constitution it was that's really a coincidence and craig and this court said no that's a police dominated gave his name according to the testimony of one of the officers petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was quote under arrest unquote here's the whole question is  whether the appellant was under arrest or was free to leave i'll answer that she was not free to leave because the officer said she wasn't free to leave and a detention doesn't apply but she was not free to leave for because they had a warrant and they were doing a search of her house and if they found evidence that was inculpatory they could then arrest her and we have cases that say that a detention during the execution of a valid search warrant is not custody for purposes of miranda correct yes but this search warrant that decision was eminently reasonable and a united states supreme court precedent the facts here the vast majority of the facts here show that there was in fact no custody petitioner was a former police officer of eight years when the detectives showed up at her door she invited them in she voluntarily consented to this interview and although counsel knows that consent is not with that issue here that is certainly a factor for the court to consider another is in custody and when the suspect is and therefore you have to give a miranda warnings and if he says he wants to talk to his lawyer you have to stop questioning are and then a detention while a warrant is be executed if they tell her if the police tell you can't leave the house until we've finished with with you with we with the warrant why isn't that for all practical purposes on a rest well it detention is obviously something short of arrest under the law and detention is usually a temporary situation while the police very they're investigating a traffic stop while they're eckstein in a search warrant as they did in this case and even though she was not technically freedom leave because she was being detained at that point she could have stopped the interview that doesn't mean that she had to continue talking to them which the in this case did and counsel before had to officer sitting across her questioning her and calling her counsel house indicated host of different things making a whole host of accusations how did you think that she felt free to leave well i think she first of all as somebody who again is a former police officer she would have understood that she never had to consent that she had  never sit down with them to begin with she would have understood the situation this is a voluntary interview the bulk of the interview took place over two and a half hours before with just those two police officers before the search warrant with even mentioned and so that portion of the interview that is really the focus and the both the california court of appeal and the district court found that the questioning of the officers was it was not particularly aggressive or confrontational they over auto there the court described the questioning by the police officer is appealing to the defendant's honest the suspects honesty expressing disbelief in his initial story when he denied that he was near the shooting is the same kind of questioning that we have here the court there explicitly found that it was not coercive and found that the the suspect there was not in custody in there we're talking about a seventeen year old who was brought to the police station by his parents here we're talking about a former police officer sitting her in her own living room with a volunteer voluntarily speaking to the police who show up when questioned you mention that for to have hours she was questioned by the police how many made before the search warrant was mentioned or after the search warrant was mentioned her statements both before and afterward minute at trial the vast majority of the interview took place before the search warrant was executed what happened after that is really kind of redundant a lot of the questioning at that point was redundant and there was no discussion in the trial court of separating those two  to actually she didn't make any admissions so really this was the interview was admitted as consciousness of guilt because she changed her story because she denied facts that then she was presented with evidence of the facts and she would then change your story so it was really there was there were no admissions that she made there was no confession here there was nothing like that it was it was really just a consciousness of guilt that's what the interview was it needed for and going back to your honor's earlier question about the difference between detention and arrest in terms of custody the first question we're looking at custody is where the person reasonably feel free to stop the questioning in leave that's just the first part of it so even in a detention where maybe that's not true the supreme court has held that we then need to move to a second step and look at the overall environment that the questioning is occurring is this environment does it present the same kind of inherently coercive atmosphere that miranda was concerned with where you have a station house somebody being arrested taken to the station questioned their handkerchiefs and here the totality of the circumstances were nothing like that we have a conversation in her room where because they're the redacted portion of the interviews where she first requests a lawyer and it's very clear the context in which she's requesting the lawyer is actually not for the interview itself but when the detective says ask her if she's willing to take a polygraph and at first he says she's willing to take a polygraph and then she immediately says can i call my lawyer and he says no you're not under arrest you're just being detained at this point and he again will you come down and take a polygraph and she said she demand she stands firm and says i will not take a polygraph without my attorney there's no problem with letting her talk to her lawyer and being in the house for th period of the search the cops could have said sure as long as we can see where you are and if you stay in the house while we have secured this search warrant you talk to whoever you want to but they told her no you can't talk to your lawyer isn't that coercive not when you look at the specific context because she wasn't asking for a lawyer to talk about the search warrant that's being executed she wasn't asking to talk to her lawyer about the questioning that was  happening at that point she was asking for a lawyer if she was taken to take a polygraph that's what she wanted a lawyer for and she and the police kind of went round and round about this and they ultimately were trying to dissuade her far as the later polygraph because when it's it's clear that the reason she wanted an attorney was to accompany her to take a polygraph she did not say well and i know if and i want to call my attorney right now and i want to talk to my attorney about the questioning or i don't want to talk to you anymore or she never even suggested that she did not want to continue talking to the officers quite the contrary right straight through to the very end of of this encounter she wanted to talk to them she continued talking to them she did so voluntarily and it was right at the end when they're about to leave she finally says you know i don't want to talk to you anymore and they're getting their things ready to leave at that point so she clearly knew how to tell them that she didn't want to talk anymore she clearly knew that that's something that she could do and she in fact did that and even after even after that happened she says you know thank you very much for talking to me and you know call you later she was not in fact coerced this was not a course of environment from beginning to the very end when question  political as as certainly the supreme court cases that we've discussed and craig has also clearly distinguishable on its facts there you have eight to ten law enforcement personnel from three different agencies coming in immediately executing the search warrant the two officers who question the defendant took him off into a small room isolated him one of them stood by the door a kind of like guarding the door it's a very different situation that we have here with the three of them sitting in her living room on the couch having a conversation  she was freed only where does that person go to the library or the police station he's already in the most constitutionally protected place on earth to be freed only as a whole right if the one place the suspect cannot go  upholding an interrogation in someone's home but listen to what the i r s agent said this is in the records of back with the ira's agent said i cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information if it might incriminate you anything you say can be used against you and if you wish you may seek the assistance of counsel that's what they said before they talk to the person that's  apply the law properly and they used a supreme court case which is back with as their main support which doesn't apply because that person was given a miranda warning not exactly