1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: Jan ua ry18, 201 8 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5104 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v
. 8 FILE MON V., 9 De fendant-Appellee. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF GR AN T C OUN TY 11 J. C. Ro bin son, D istri ct Jud ge
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San taFe, NM 15 fo r Appe llant
16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Jeffr ey

J. B uckels, A ssistant Public De fender 18 San taFe, NM 19 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 I. INTR ODU CTION 4 { 1} In thi s ca se w e re ex am ine a j uve nil e’ s rig ht to be fr ee f ro m se lf -i nc ri m inatio n, 5 as se cure d by

the F if th A m en dm en t of

the U nit ed

S ta te s Co nst itu tio n and the Ba sic 6 Ri ght s p r o v i s i o n un d e r th e D e l i n qu e n c y

A c to f th e C h i l dr e n ’ s C o d e , N M S A 1 978, 7 Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4 ( 2009 ). T he S ta te ap pe al s the supp re ssi on o f tw o st at em en ts m ad e 8 by six te en -y ear- ol d F il em on V. 9 { 2} Fi le m on m ad e the f ir st s ta te m en t t o hi s pr oba tio n of fi ce rs . W e hol d th at , abse nt 10 a va lid

w ai ve r, Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4( C) pr ec lud es the adm iss ion of F ile m on’ s st at em en t 11 to his p robation officers w hi l e i n investi gatory detention. W e af

firm the district 12 co urt’ s or de r supp re ssi ng the use of the state m en t i n asub se que nt p ro se cu tio n. 13 { 3} The sec ond con tested statem ent was e licited by police o ff

i ce rs at the Silver 1 4 Ci t y P o l i c e D e p a rtm e n t . F i l e m o n w a s a t t h i s p o i n t i n c u s t o dy , a n d e n t i t l e dto be 15 w ar ne d of his M ira nda r i g h t s . A ti s s u e i s w h e t h e r th e mi d s t r e a m M

ira nda w ar

nin gs 16 we re suffic ient to inform Filem on of h is rights. W e conclude that the war ning s wer e 17 insuffic i en t under M iss ouriv . Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S. 600 , 617 ( 2004 ). Be ca use the 18 state m en t w as e lic ite d inc le ar vio la tio n of the Fi fth A m en dm en t and S ec tio n 32 A -2
- 19 14, w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su

ppr es sio n of

the state m en t.15 W e do not assess the adm issib ility of t he statem ents in the lob by . T he district 1 16 court found that these statem ents wer e spontaneou s and uns olicited and Filem on do es 17 no t co nt es t th atfin di ng on ap pe al
. Se e Sta te v. Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

40, 131 18 N
. M. 1, 33 P
. 3d 1 ( statin g th at vol unt ee re d st at em en ts are “ not subj ec t t o th e 19 pr ote ct ion s of

S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4 si nc e suc h state m en ts ar e ge ne ra lly not in r es pons e 20 to any ‘ questio ning ’ or ‘ interrogation.’ ”). 2 1 II . BACKGRO UND AND PROCEDURAL HI STO RY 2 { 4} This case com es to this Court on interlocutory appeal from the Sixth Jud icial 3 District Court. Pursuant to Rule 12-201 (A )(1)( a) N MRA , th e S t at e a ppea ls the dist rict 4 court’ s order to suppress two statem ents, on e elicited at the j uvenile prob ation office 5 an d th e oth er

a t the S ilv er

Ci ty P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t. 6 { 5} Fi le m on w as on p ro ba tio n f or c om m itt ing a de li nque nt a ct

and e xpe ct ed

to 7 co m e to the pr obatio n of fi ce to pi ck up a tr av el pe rm it. F ile m on arr ive d a t the 8 p r o b a t i o n o f

f i c e w i t h h i s mo t h e r

an ds t e p f

a t h e r . Wh e n h e e n t e r e dth e l o b b y, 9 Su pe rv iso r Ra ch el Me din a gr ee te d Fi le m on an d as ke d if he w as the re to pic k up the 10 tr av el pe rm it. F ile m on r es pond ed that he “ j ust shot C hugi e an d E ri c. ” S upe rv iso r 1 1 1 Me di n aa s k e dw h a tF i l e m o n w a s t a l k i n g ab o u t , an d F i l e m o n ’ s m o t h e r

i n t e r j e c t e d, 12 statin g th at

he w as the re “ to t

ur n hi m se lf in. ” A t tha t po in t, File m on’ s pr oba tio n 13 of fi ce r, Co dy

Mc N ie l, e nte re d th e lobb y . F ile m on a ga in s ai d th at he w as the re to 14 “ tu rn [] him se lf i n,” th is ti m e ad di ng , “ fo r m ur de r, I gu es s.”3

1 { 6} Prior to Filem on’s arrival, McN iel had been inform ed of a shooting an d was 2 he lpi ng to loc at e a pot en tia l su spe ct —F ile m on’ s c o- de fe ndant i n anothe r ca se . T hus, 3 Mc N ie l kn ew w ha t F ile m on w as ta lki ng a bout
. Mc N ie l t old

F ile m on t o “ go ahe ad

and 4 co m e in an d . . . we’ll g o t o my off ic e an d . . . we’ll d is cu ss it .” 5 { 7} Mc N ie l esc orte d Fil em on thr oughaloc ke d do or and a ha llw ay , to Su

pe rv iso r 6 Me din a’ s of

f i c e . M c N i e l s hut the doo r. F ile m on’ s pare nts tol d M cN ie l and S upe rv iso r 7 Medina that Filem on wanted to turn him self in to Ne w Mexico State P olice Of ficer 8 Michael D unn, because “ that’ s who h e trus ts.” McNiel stepp ed out and asked ano ther 9 pr ob at io n o ffi cer t o c al l t he po li ce, i de nt ifyin g F il em on as “ th e sh oo te r.” 10 { 8} In sid e Su

pe rv iso r Me din a’ s of

fi ce , Mc N ie l a ske d if

F il em on was th er e “ to 11 co nf es s [t o] th e d riv e-b y

sh oo ti ng .” Fi le m on res po nd ed , “ [I]t was n’t a d riv e - b y.” 12 McNi el pe rs ist ed , “ [O ] kay . . . w hy don ’ t y ou g o ahe ad

and t el l m e the sto ry

then .” 13 Fi le m on r es pond ed

w iththe f

ir st c ont es te d state m en t. Mc N ie l c ont inu ed to spe ak to 14 Fi le m on unti l po lic e ar ri ve d. 15 { 9} Supervisor Medina later testified that Filem on arrived at the probation office 16 of his ow n vo lit ion , and n ei the r she nor Mc N ie l qu es tio ned Fi lem on. A cc or din g to 17 Mc N ie l, how ev er , Mc N ie l “ w an te d to ke ep him ta lki ng unti l .
. . lawe nf or ce m en t go t 18 the re so tha t the y co uld take him int o c ust ody
. ” Fi le m on’ s m oth er “ [d id] m ost

of the4

1 ta lki ng” and “ Fi le m on s ai d ve ry li ttl e. ” N ei the r pr oba tio n of fi ce r advis ed

F ile m on o f 2 his M ira nda rig ht s or hi s rig ht to rem ai n si le nt un de r Sec ti on 32 A-2 -1 4. See Javier 3 M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ 41 ( de te rm ini ng tha t S ec tio n 32A -2 -1 4 re qui re s a ch ild to be 4 warned of the right to rem ain silent du ring an investi gatory detention). 5 { 10} Se ve ra l po lic e of fi ce rs ar ri ve d a t the pr oba tio n of

fi ce , inc lud ing O ff

ic er D unn 6 and Sergeant Joseph Ar redondo. Sergeant Arredondo had been present at the hosp ital 7 w iththe vic tim s pr ior

to his dis pa tc h and kne wF ile m on w as asus pe ct . S upe rv iso r 8 Me din a tol d a t l eas t one pol ic e of fi ce r w ha t F ile m on h ad sa id. A cc or din g to 9 Su pe rv iso r Me din a, the park ing lot of the j uve nil e pr oba tion of fi ce loo ke d “ lik e 10 Ch ri stm as ” due to the num be r of pol ic e uni ts a

nd f la shi ng l igh ts. 11 { 11} Se rg eant Arr ed ondo inf orm ed F ile m on tha t “ de te ct ive s ne ed ed to spe ak w ith 12 him ” an d tr an spor

te d Fi le m on and h is m oth er to the S ilv er

Ci ty P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, 13 wher e he tu rned Filem on over to Captain Javier He rnandez. Captain He rnandez m et 14 Filem on and hi s m other in the parking l o t an d asked if they would com e inside. 15 Ca pta in H er nande z had be ena ct ive ly

que sti oni ng an e y ew itn es s to the sho oti ng, and 16 kne wthat the lik el y shoo te r w as shor t, na m ed “ Fi l, ” an d ha d a“pe anut- sha pe d” he ad , 17 which m atched Filem on’s a ppearance. 18 { 12} Seei ng that the int er vie wr oom

w as oc cu

pie d w ithanothe r sus pe ct , Ca pta in5

1 He rnandez took Filem on and his m other to his o ffice . C aptain Her nandez summ oned 2 the c as e ag en t a ssi gne d to the m ur de r inv es tig at ion , D et ec tiv e Pat C as til lo. Ca pta in 3 He rnandez later testified that he intended for De tective Castillo “ to sit th ere and listen 4 to wha t [ Fi le m on] ha d to say be ca use the oth er

w itn es s . . . w as n’ t c oope ratin g w ith 5 us. ” Ca pta in H er nande z tur

ne d on his be lt re co rd er

and a ske d F ile m on “ howold he 6 w as ” an d“ i f

h e w a s g o i n g t o t e l l m e w h a th ap p e n e dt o d a y . ” F i l e m o n r es pond ed , 7 “ Wha t [ do] y ou w an t t o kn ow ?” C a p t a i nH e r n an d e zansw er ed , “ E ve ry

thi ng. ” Fi le m on 8 pr oc ee de d to giv e a fu ll state m en t. 9 { 13} A t no ti m e did

Ca pta in H er nande z advis e Fi le m on o f his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. 10 Whe n a ske d w hy

he did not a dvi se F il em on o f his c onst itu tio na l r igh ts, Ca pta in 11 He rnandez said, “ I didn ’ t really think about it. I wa sn’ t sure what his involvem ent was 12
. . . if he w as the shoot er or if he w asn’ t the sho o t er . I j ust wanted to see w hat 13 inf orm at ionhe ha d. ” O nc e he obt ai ne d F ile m on’ s st at em en t, Ca pta in H er nande z tol d 14 Fi le m on tha t he w oul d be det ai ne d. T he St at e con ce de s that the state m en t eli ci te d by 15 Captain He rnandez is inadm issib le. 16 { 14} Capta in H e rn a n d e z th e n a s k e dF i l e m o n t o m a k e as t a t e m e n tt o D e t e c t i ve 17 Castillo. D etective Ca stillo took Filem on and his m other to the interview room , where 18 he r ea d F ile m on h is M ira nda w ar

nin gs. Be fo re c ont inu ing the int er vie w , D et ec tiv e6

1 Ca sti llo tol d F ile m on tha t he w as “ fi nis hin g up. ” D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo c hara ct er iz ed the 2 M ira nda w ar

nin gs as a“ fo rm al ity , ” an d in str uc te d F ile m on and h is m oth er to sig n th e 3 w ri tte n w ai ve r of ri ght s, w hic h the y did
. D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo expla ine d t ha t t he ir 4 conversation would “ go the sam e w ay ” as the conversation with Captain H ernandez, 5 but in gr eate r de ta il. D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo did not inf orm Fi le m on tha t the state m en t he 6 ha d j ust

giv ento Ca

pta in H er nande z w oul d no t be a dm iss ibl e at tr ia l. D etect ive 7 Ca sti llo the n ob ta ine d ase co nd s ta te m en t, w hic h in cl ude d th e sam e co nte nt a s th e 8 statem ent elicited by

Captain He rnandez. 9 { 15} At the conclusio n of t he supp ression hearing, the district court determ ined that 10 the statem ent in S upervisor Me dina’ s office w as inadm issib le because F ilem on was 1 1 n o t a d v i s e d o f

h i s s t a tu t o ry ri g h ta g a i n s ts e l f

- i n c r i mi n a t i o n an dd i dn o tkn o w i n g l y, 12 volu ntarily , and int elligentlywa ive hi s r i ght s un de r S e c t i on 32A- 2-14(D). The district 13 co urt als o suppr es se d both sta te m en ts el ic ite d a t the S ilv er Ci ty P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, 14 f i nd i ng t hat t he pre- M

ira nda , unw ar

ne d st at em en t w as ina dm iss ibl e; D et ec tiv e 1 5 C a s t i l l o ’s mi d s t r e a m M ira nda warnings were constitu tionallyina d eq u ate under 16 Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S
. a t6 04 ; and n e i t he r s t a t e m e nt

w a s m a de s ub

j e c tt o av a l i d w a i ve r 17 under Section 32A-2-14(D ). 18 { 16} T he St at e ap pe al s the dis tr ic t co urt’ s or de r to supp re ss tw o state m en ts: (1 ) the7

1 state m en t i n S upe rv iso r Me din a’ s of fi ce ; and ( 2) the pos t- w ar nin g st at em en t t o 2 D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo
. O n a ppe al , the S ta te c ont en ds tha t S ec tion 32 A -2 -1 4 do es not 3 preclude the adm issio n of the statem ent and that Section 32A-2-14 applies on ly when 4 lawe nf

or ce m en t pl ac es ac hil d ininv es tig at or y de te nti on. T he S ta te a lso co nte nds 5 that the pos t-M

i r a nda s t at em ent to Detec tive Castillo is adm issib le because it w as 6 vol unt ar

y , unc oe rc ed , an d m ad e subj ec t to a va lid w ai ve r. Be ca use the ch ar ge s e xpos e 7 Fi le m on t o a pot en tia l sent en ce of lif e im pr iso nm en t, w e hav e j ur isd ic tio n to de ci de 8 th e ap pe al un de r Ru le 12 -1 02 (A)(1 ) NMRA. Sta te v . Sm all wo od , 200 7- N MS C- 005, 9 ¶ 11, 141 N
. M. 178 , 152 P
. 3d 8 21. 10 III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 11 { 17} A n a

ppe al of adis tr ic t c ourt’ s su

ppr es sio n r

uli ng r aise s am ixe d qu es tio n of 12 fact an d l aw. St at e v . W ya tt B. , 2015-NMC A- 110, ¶ 16, 359 P. 3d 16 5. W e re view 13 “ whether the law wa s correc tly applied to the facts, ” viewing the facts “ in a m anner 14 m ost favorable to the prevailing party .” State v. Jason L. , 2000 -N MS C- 018, ¶ 10, 129 15 N
. M. 119 , 2 P
. 3d 8 56 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). W e de fe r to the 16 district court’ s finding s of fact so long as they are suppo rted by

subst antial evidence. 17 Id

. “ Su bst an tia l e vid en ce is suc h re le vant ev ide nc e as a re as ona ble m ind m igh t a cc ep t 18 as adequate to supp ort a conclusion.” W ya tt B. , 201 5-NMC A- 110, ¶ 16 (internal8

1 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ T he dis tr ic t cour t’ s appl ic at ion of the lawto 2 the facts is a question of law that w e re view de novo.” Id

. 3 IV. DISC US SION 4 { 18} Inde te rm ini ng the a dm issib il it yof the state m en ts, w e be ginw iththe 5 fu nda m enta l p rin ci pl es ag ai ns t s el f- inc ri m inatio n. T he r ight a ga ins t se lf -i nc ri m inatio n 6 is b or ne of the F if th A m en dm en t and a

ppl ie d to the state s th ro ugh the F ourte en th 7 Am en dm en t. Se e M

alloyv . H ogan , 378 U. S. 1, 8 (1964). T he Fifth A m endm ent m ay 8 be inv oke d inr es pons e to “ of fi ci al que sti ons . . . in an y . . . proc ee din g, c ivi l or 9 crim inal, for

m al o r inform al, wher e the answe rs m ight in crim inate .
. . in future 10 crim inal proceedings.” M inn es ota v . Murp hy , 465 U. S. 420, 426 (198 4) (internal 11 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 12 { 19} In M

ira nda v. A riz ona , the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt ad opt ed a w ar nin gs13 based approach for deter m ining the adm issib ility of statem en t s el icited in pol ice 14 cu st od y . See 384 U
. S. 436 , 476 ( 1966 ). P ri or to pol ic e q ue st ioning, pol ic e m ust 15 advise the person of t he right to rem ain silent, t hat any statem ent m ade m ay be used 16 as e v i d e n ce ag ai ns t h im or h er, an d o f th e ri gh t t o a n a tt orne y . Id

. a t 44 4. I t i s on ly 17 through these wa rn ings, and an awareness that anything said can and will be used 18 ag ai nst

the pe rs on i n c ourt, “ that the re can be an y as sur an ce of re al und er standi ng and9

1 intellig ent exercise of the privilege.” Id

. a t 46 9. O f part ic ular im

portanc e is the not ion 2 that st at em en ts tha t w oul d othe rw ise be c onsi de re d vo lun tary m ust be e xc lud ed

f or 3 fai lu re t o warn. Dick

erson v. U

nited Sta tes , 530 U. S. 428, 443-44 (20 00). 4 { 20} In ad dit ion to the co nst itu tio na l pr ote ct ion s ag ai nst se lf -i nc ri m inatio n, S ec tio n 5 32A-2-14 provides a st atutory right against self-incrim ination to children susp ected 6 of de li nq ue nt co nd uc t. Ja vi er M. , 2001 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 41. S ection 32A-2-14(C) 7 pr ovi de s, in part : 8 N o pe rs on s ubj ec t t o th e provi sio ns o f the D el inque nc y A ct w ho i s 9 al le ge d or

sus pe ct ed

of be ing a del inque nt chi ld s ha ll be int er ro ga te d or 10 questio ned without first advisi ng the child of the child’ s constit ution al 11 rights and securing a knowing, intelligent and vo luntary wa iver. 12 In Ja vi er

M. , w e expla ine d th at

“ Se ct ion32A- 2- 14 i s no t a m er e co dif

ic at ionof 13 M ira nda , but w as intended in stead to provid e children w ith greater statutory 14 protection than constitut ionallym andated.” Ja vi er M. , 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶¶ 30, 32. 15 “ In ste ad

of usi ng M

ira nda triggering term s such as ‘ custody ’ or ‘ custodi al 16 in t erro ga ti on ,’ th e Leg is la tu re u se d m uc h b ro ad er t erm s, s uc h a s, ‘all eg ed ,’ 17 ‘ susp ected, ’ ‘i n terrogated, ’ and ‘ questio ned.’ ” Id

. ¶ 29 ( quot ing S ec tio n 32 A -2
- 18 14(C)). It is w ell-settled that unwarned statem ents that are a dm issib le under M ira nda 19 m ay be in ad m is si bl e u nd er Se ct io n 3 2A- 2- 14
. Se e, e . g. , id

. ¶ 48; State v. A nton io T. ,10

1 2015 -N MS C- 019, ¶

¶ 15- 17, 352 P
. 3d 1 172. 2 { 21} Q ue sti oni ng o ff

ic ia ls m ust ex er ci se gr eate r vig ilanc e w ithc hil d su spe ct s du e 3 to their “ [l] ack o f ex perience, perspective, and judgm ent,” and their dim inish ed 4 “ ability

to recognize and avoid var ious choices detrim ental to them .” Sta te v . R iv as , 5 2017 -N MS C- 022, ¶ 43, 398 P. 3d 2 99 ( ci tin g J. D

. B

. v. No rth Ca rol ina , 564 U
. S. 261 , 6 272 (201 1) (internal quot ation m arks om itted)). “ That a child will experience police 7 qu es t i o n i n g i n m an y wa ys d i s t i n c t f r o m a n ad u l ti s a ‘c o m

m o n s en s e r ea l i t y.’ ” I

d. 8 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. E v e n w i t h r e s p e c tt o a du l to f f e n d e r s , th e U n i t e d S t a t e s S up r e me 9 Co urt ha s r ec ogni ze d th at the pr es sur e of int er

ro ga tio n “ m ay ind

uc e a fr igh te nin gly 10 high perce ntage of people to confess to crim es t hey never com m itted.” Id

. (internal 11 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he se c onc er ns f or tr uthand r el ia

bil ity appl y 12 wit h g reat er fo rce wh en th e su sp ectis a ch il d. Se e Ja vi er M. , 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶

37. 13 Mindful of the forego i n g p ri nciples against s elf-incr im ination , and with particular 14 atte nti on t o F ile m on’ s y outh, w e an al y ze the a dm iss ibi lity of th e c o n t e s t e d

s t at em en ts. 15 A. Sect ion 32A-2-1 4 Pr o hi bits th e A dm issio n of an U nw arned State m ent to 16 P ro ba ti on Of

fi ce rs in a S ub se qu en t P ro se cu ti on 17 { 22} T he que sti on o f w he the r a ch ild ’ s un w ar ne d st at em en t i n r es pons e to 18 questio ning by

his probatio n officer

is adm issib le under Sec tion 32A-2-14 is a m atter11

1 of st atut ory in te rp ret at io n to be rev ie wed de no vo . See Antonio T. , 201 5- N MS C- 019, 2 ¶ 12. T o de te rm ine if

astate m en t i s a dm iss ibl e unde r Se ct ion 32 A-2 -14, w e fi rs t 3 establish “ the m inim

um constitu tional guarantees available to the Child.” Ja vi er M. , 4 2001 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 11. W e then deter m ine “ what, if any , additio nal protections are 5 available to the Child un der the statute.” Id

. 6 { 23} W ith respect to these m inim al constitut ional gu arantee s, the M ira nda w ar

nin gs 7 are t y pi cal ly requ ire d i n c irc um st an ces of c us to di al in te rro ga ti on . Id

. ¶ ¶ 14- 15. O ur 8 ca se s ho ld tha t “ [a ] n in div idu al is subj ec t t o c ust odi al int er ro ga tio n w he n he or

she 9 lacks the free dom to leave to an extent equal to form al arr est.” Id

. ¶ 18. T he thr es hol d 10 questio n in d e t e rm ining whether a person is in custod ial interrogation is whether there 11 w er e “ an y

w or ds or ac tio ns on the part of the pol ic e . . . that the pol ic e shou ld k now 12 are reasonably

likely to elicit an incrim inating res p o nse from the suspect.” R hode 13 Is lan d v

. I

nni s , 446 U. S. 291, 301 (198 0). 14 { 24} Whil e the U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Co urt ha s y et

to co nsi de r the F if

th 15 A m en dm en t r igh ts o f j uve nil e pr oba tio ne rs , it c onsi de re d th e righ ts of a dul t 16 pr oba tio ne rs inM

urph y , 465 U. S. at 4 22. T he M urph yCourt determ ined that 17 probation officer s are not re quired to prov ide M ira nda warnings to adult probatio ners 18 who are n ot in cu st od y . Id

. a t 42 9- 30, 433
. Beca use pr oba tio n m ee tin gs d o no t12

1 ro uti ne ly

giv e ri se to the c oe rc ive pre ssure s of ac ust odi al int er

ro ga tio n, an a dul t 2 pr oba tio ne r’ s un w ar

ne d st at em en ts t o apr oba tio n offi cer c anbe a dm itt ed in a 3 su bs eque nt cri m in al pro se cu ti on . Se e id. at 422, 433, 440. T he Fi fth Am en dm en t 4 fo rb ids , how ev er , astate f ro m c om pe lli ng s el f- i n c r i m i n at i n g s t at e m e nts a s ac ondi tio n 5 of pr ob at io n an d t he n u si ng th e st at em en ts to pro se cu te a ne w off en se . Id

. at 435 n. 7; 6 cf. United States v. V

on Behren , 822 F
. 3d 1 139, 114 1 ( 10th C ir
. 201 6) ( co nc lud ing 7 that the F if

th A m en dm en t w as vio la te d by r equir ing a pr oba tio ne r to subm it to a li e 8 de te ct or

te st a s ac ondi tio n of

sup er vis ed r el ea se and thr eateni ng to revoke it f or 9 inv oki ng the pr ivi le ge a gain st se lf -i nc ri m inatio n)
. H er e, be ca use ne ith er

party 10 contends that the events at the j uvenile pro bation o ffice am ount ed to a custodial 11 in te rro ga ti on , or t ha t t h e s ta te m en t was co m pe ll edov er Fi le m on ’s ob jecti on , we 12 as sum e, w ith out

de ci din g, that the state m en t i s a dm iss ibl e unde r the F if th 13 A m en dm en t. T his do es not pr ee m pt o ur ana ly sis of

w he the r the state m en t i s 14 adm issib le und er

S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4, be ca

use the statut e be sto w s gr eate r pr ote ct ion 15 to y ou th th an th e Fi fth Am en dm en t re qu ire s. Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

¶ 24, 37. 16 { 25} Unlike M

ira nda , “ Se ct ion 32A -2 -1 4 does not r equir e that a

c hil d be sub

j ec t t o 17 cu st od ia l i nt erro ga ti on in or de r fo r th e pr ot ect io ns of th e st atut e to co m e in to for ce.” 18 Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

32. W e ha ve int er

pr et e d S e c t i o n3 2 A
- 2
- 1 4 a s r equir ing13

1 a ch ild to be w ar ne d of the statut or

y ri ght ag ai nst se lf inc ri m inatio n w he n su bj ec t t o 2 a lim ited scope encount er known as an “ i n v es tigatory detention.” Ja vi er

M. , 200 1- 3 N MS C- 030, ¶

38. 4 { 26} Investigatory

detentions are “ subs tantially less coercive than cus t o d i al 5 interrogations .” Id

. ¶ 19. F or e xa m ple , a tr af

fi c sto p is an in ve sti ga tor y de te nti on 6 because it is brief, tem

porary , and “ not so inherently coercive” as to com pel a ty pical 7 pe rs on to sel f-i nc riminat e. Id

. W e first deter

m ined that a child was subject to an 8 in ve st ig at ory

de te nt io n i n t he co nt ex t o f po li ce q ue st io ni ng . Se e id. ¶ 40. I n Ja vi er

M ., 9 a pol ic e of

fi cer re m ove d ac hil d f

ro m aparty to que sti on h im

about und er ag e 10 dr in ki ng . Id

. ¶¶ 2-4, 20. Ther e wa s no c ustod ial interrogation beca use the encounter 11 wa s not coercive and the childwa s not “ overpowere d by police presence. ” Id

. ¶ ¶ 20- 12 21. N ev er

the le ss, the ch ild w as (1 ) sus pe ct ed of de lin que nt a ct ; ( 2) que sti one d; and 13 (3 ) no t fr ee t o l eav e. Id

. ¶ 20. G ive n the se ci rc um stanc es , w e de te rm ine d th at the c hil d 14 w as in inv es tig at or

y de te nti on and e nti tle d to be a dvi se d of his rig ht to r em ai n si le nt. 15 Id

. ¶ 38. 16 { 27} In addition to being less coercive than custod ial interrogations, investig atory 17 de te nt io ns are l es s ad ve rs ari al
. Id

. ¶ 22. Unlike custo dial interrogations , investigatory 18 detention s are not “police dom inated” and the chi l d i s not “ overpowere d by police14

1 presence. ” Id

. ¶ 21 ( int er na l qu ot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he re is no 2 r e qu i r e men tth a tth e c h i l db e “ s w e p tf r o m fa mi l i a r

s u rr o u n d i n g s i n t o p o l i c e c u s t o dy, 3 sur ro unde d by

anta goni stic fo rces, and s ubj ec te d to the te ch nique s of 4 persuasion . . . so that the individual feels under com pulsi on to sp eak.” An t o n i o T. , 5 2015 -N MS C- 019, ¶

14 ( om iss ionin or igi na l) ( al te rati on , in te rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks, 6 and citation om itted). R ather, a child is subject to an inves t igatory detention when 7 m erely suspected of having com m i t t ed an offense and qu estioned in circum stances 8 un de r whi ch th e ch il d is no t free to lea ve . Se e Ja vi er M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

¶ 34- 35, 9 38. 10 { 28} While the district court didnot expre s sly rec ogni ze that Filem on was in an 11 investig atory

detention in Supervisor Medina’ s office, it did find th at McN iel wa s 12 “ hol din g” F ile m on unti l po lic e ar ri ved, that Mc N ie l w as a ct ive ly inv es tig at ing 13 Fi le m on, and that th e state m en t w as e lic ite d. T he re w as sub stanti al e vid en ce to 14 supp ort these finding s, which lead us to conclude that Filem on was in investig atory 15 de te ntion . The dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c onc lud ed that S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4 is not li m ite d to 16 statem ents elicited by police officer s. W e agre e. 17 { 29} Filem on was su spected of com m itting a newoffense, other than that for w hich 18 he was o n p ro ba ti on . Se e Ja vi er M. , 2001 -N MS C- 030, ¶¶ 34- 35 (“ A s a pr er equis ite15

1 to r equir ing that a

c hil d be a dvi se d of

his or he r righ ts unde r Su

bse ct ion( C) , the 2 Child m

ust be either ‘ alleged’ or ‘ susp ected’ of being a delinqu ent child.”). Whether 3 a child was ‘ susp ected’ of delinquen t activity for purposes of Section 32A-2-14(C) 4 is ev al ua te d us in g an ob jecti v e s t a n d ard
. Ja vi er

M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶

35. Upon 5 hearing Filem on’s statem ent in the lobb y , it wa s objec tively rea sonable for McN iel 6 an d S upe rv iso r Me din a to c onc lud e that F ile m on h ad c om m itt ed ane wde lin que nt 7 offense. This is obvio us giv en that McN iel wa s aware of a shootin g and that a susp ect 8 w as a cquain te d w ithF ile m on. T hus, F ile m on w as sus pe ct ed of c om m itt ing a 9 d el i n qu en tac tb y t h e t i m e t h e p ro b at i o n o ff i ce rs es co rt ed h i m

t o Sup er v i s o r M ed i n a’s 10 of fic e. Se e id. ¶

¶ 20- 21. 11 { 30} Once in Superviso r Medina’ s office, Filem on was questioned abo ut a new 12 of fen se . See Antonio T. , 201 5- N MS C- 019 , ¶ 27. Mc N ie l a ske d, “ [A ] re y ou h er e to 13 co nf es s a bout the dr ive- by

sho oti ng, ” a que sti on whic h w as r ea sona bly li ke ly to 14 rev eal in cri m in at in g i nf or m at io n. Se e Ja vi er

M. , 2 00 1- NMSC -0 30 , ¶ 52 (Mi nz ne r, J., 15 spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng)
. T his int er ac tio n w en t be y ond a ro uti ne m ee tin g r eg ar din g 16 Filem on’s c om

pliance with his conditi ons o f p ro bation andbecam e investigatory 17 w he n M cN ie l pr om

pt e d F i l em on t o r ev ea l i nc ri m inatin g in fo rm at ionabout an of fe nse 18 fo r whi ch he was n ot alr ead y on pro ba ti on . Se e, e . g. , St at e v. Ta yl or E. , 20 16 -NMCA-16

1 100, ¶ ¶ 23- 24, 385 P. 3d 639 (h old ing that a pr oba tio n of fi ce r w as not

r equir ed to giv e 2 M ira nda warnings before a sking routine questi ons relating to probationary status). 3 Su pe rv iso r Me din a share d th e inf orm at ionw iththe pol ic e, the re by servin g a s a 4 co ndui t t o th e cr im ina l i nve sti ga tio n. 5 { 31} Fi le m on was n ot free to lea ve Supe rv is orMed in a’s of f ic e. Ja vi er

M. , 200 1- 6 NMSC -0 30 , ¶ 38 (stating that Section 32A-2-14(C) applies “ when a child is seized 7 pursuant to an investigato ry detention andnot free to leave”)

. To determ ine whether 8 a chi ld is fr ee to le av e, w e ex am ine “ al l of the f ac tua l c ir cum stanc es , ” inc lud ing “ (1 ) 9 the conduct of the police, (2) the person of the indiv idual citizen, and (3) the phy sical 10 surround ings of t he encounter.” Jason L. , 200 0- N MS C- 018, ¶ 15 ( int er na l qu otatio n 11 m ar ks and citation om itted). F ilem on’s y outh is of im portance in determ ining whether 12 he was fr ee t o e xt ract hi ms el f fro m th e en co un te r. Se e id

. ¶ 18; se e a ls o J av ie r M. , 13 2001 -N MS C- 03 0, ¶

37 ( ci tin g c hil dr en ’ s “ im m at ur ity and s usc ep tib ili ty

to 14 intim idation ” as a reason why they m ust be advis ed of their rights during an 15 in ve st igato ry

de te nti on) ; R iv as , 2 0 1 7 -N M SC -0 2 2 , ¶ ¶ 4 2 -4 3 (d es cr i b i n g a c h i l d ’s 16 vuln erability

in the context of interrogation ). 17 { 32} Whil e Fi le m on ent er ed the pr oba tio n of

fi ce of his ow n vo lit ion , the na tur e of 1 8 t h e e n c o u n t e r

c h a n g e dwh e n h e mad e th e i n i t i a l v o l u n t a ry s t a t e men t s i n th e l o b b y.17

1 T he pr oba tio n of

fi ce rs iso la te d F ile m on b y e sc ortin g hi m

thr ough a loc ke d do or

and 2 do wn a ha ll way to a su pe rv is or ’s off ic e in th e in te rio r of

th e b ui ld in g. Se e Ja vi er

M. , 3 2001 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 18. T houg h Filem on wa s not a stranger to the probation office, 4 h e k n ew t h at p o l i ce we re o n t h ei r wa y. We ar e u np er s u ad ed t h at a ch i l di n Fi l emo n ’s 5 posi tio n w oul d f

ee l f re e to e xtr ac t hi m se lf fr om thi s si tuatio n, and f

or thi s r ea son 6 conclude that he was not free to leave. 7 { 33} Se ct ion32A -2 -1 4 is not li m ite d to pol ic e que sti oni ng, a s the St at e as se rt s. T he 8 presence of a

police officer

is relevant, but no t dispo sitive, to d et er m i n i ng whether 9 a ch il d i s i n i nv es ti ga to ry de te nt io n. See A nton io T. , 2015-NMS C-019, ¶¶ 24-27. In 10 Antonio T. , w e he ld tha t S ec tio n 32 A -2 -1 4 a ppl ie d to que sti oni ng b y asc hool 11 pr in ci pa l. Id

. ¶ 27 . The presence o f a police officer added an elem ent of coerc ion th at 12 i s not us ually

present in a school dis ciplinary proceeding; but perhaps m ore 13 im po rta nt ly, gr an te d a c c e s s t o ev id en ce u se d t o p ro se cu te a de li nq ue nt off en se . Id

. 14 The protec tions of Section 32A-2-14 we re broug ht to bear beca use the evidence wa s 15 used to pros ecute the child. T he sam e re sult pertains when the statem ent is elicited 16 by probation o ffice rs and used to pros ecute a newoffense. 17 { 34} T he Co urt of Appe al s he ld tha t a c hil d’ s un w ar

ne d st at em en ts t o hi s pr oba tio n 18 of fi ce r w er e adm iss ibl e fo r the li m ite d purp ose of apr obatio n r ev oc at ionpr oc ee din g18

1 in Ta yl or E. , 201 6- N MC A -1 00, ¶ 19. A s th e St at e co nte nds he re , the Co urt of 2 Appeals noted that requiring prob ation officers to issue M ira nda w ar

nin gs c oul d 3 “ transform [] a re lat i o n ship in tended to be rehabilitativ e . . . into an adversar ial 4 re l at i o n s h i p [. ]” I

d. ¶¶ 47- 48, 65. T he a dm iss ionof the state m en ts d id n ot t

ur n onthe 5 na tu re of the rela t i o n s h i p , h owe ve r. Se e id. ¶¶ 14-15. Rather, the statem ents wer e 6 adm iss ibl e bec au se the y w er e el ic ite d inar out ine m ee tin g and n ot u se d to pr ose cu te 7 a newoffense. See id. ¶ ¶ 23- 24. T he Co urt of

Appe al s e m

pha siz ed the dis tin ct ion 8 be tw ee n pr oba tio n r ev oc at ionhe ar ing s, in w hic h th e pr ose cu tio n ha s a lr ea dy 9 oc cu rred , and a ne w pr os ecu ti on in whi ch th e Fi fth Am en dm en t i s at st ak e. Id

. ¶¶ 14- 10 15. U nlike Ta

yl or E. , F ile m on’ s enc ount er w iththe pr oba tio n of fi ce rs w as f

ar f ro m 11 routine, and the statem ent is being in troduced to prosecute Filem on for a newoffense. 12 T his dis tin gui she s th e sit ua ti on fr om the intro duc tio n of

astate m en t i n apr oba tio n 13 rev oc a t i onh e a r i ng . I ti s t he u se o f the s t a t e m e nt

t o pr os e c ut e an e wo f

f e ns e that 14 im pli cate s f undam en ta l c onc er

ns a ga ins t se lf

-i nc ri m inatio n. 15 { 35} W e c o n c l u d e t h a t F i l e m o n w a s s ub j e c t t o a n i n v e s t i g a t o ry d e t e n tio n f or 16 purpos es o f Section 32 A- 2-14, and the unwarned statem ent to his p robation officers 17 cannot

be use d to pr ose cu te a ne wof fe nse . T he abse nc e of

apol ic e of

fi ce r doe s no t 18 bar thi s r es ult

w he re the state m en ts w er e el ic ite d inan in ve sti ga tor y deten ti on and19

1 o ff er ed i n a n ew cr i m i n al ca s e. Fo r t h i s re as o n , we af fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 supp re ssi on o f the state m en t. 3 B. The P ost-

Mi ran da State m ent Is Inadm issible Und er Se ibe rt 4 { 36} Fi le m on w as tr an spor te d f ro m the j uve nil e pr oba tio n of fi ce to the S ilv er

Ci ty 5 Police D epartm ent. A t the police departm ent, Captain He rnandez w as inform ed that 6 Fi le m on w a s t h e r e t o s p e a k t o h i m . C ap t a i n H e rn a n d e z tu rn e d o n h i s r e c o r d e r an d 7 escorted Filem on and hi s m other to his o ffice , where he proce eded to inte rv iew 8 Fi le m on i n th e pr es en ce o f th e de te ct ive a ssi gne d to the c as e, D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo
. 9 Ca pta in H er nande z di d not

inf orm F ile m on o f his M

ira nda r igh ts. O nc e Ca

pta in 10 He rnandez elicited a f ull, detailed s tatem ent from Filem on, h e in form ed Filem on that 11 he w as goi ng t o be de ta ine d. I m m ed ia te ly f oll ow ing thi s in te rv ie w , Ca ptain 12 H er nande z dir ec te d F ile m on to re pe at the state m en t to D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo
. D et ec tiv e 13 Cas ti llo too k F ile m on and h is m oth er int o th e int er

vie wr oom , gave F ile m on h is 14 M ira nda w ar

nin gs, and o bta ine d ase co nd, de ta ile d st at em en t. 15 { 37} T he dis tr ic t c ourt su ppr es se d bo th state m en ts el ic ite d at the pol ic e de partm en t. 1 6 T h e S t a t e ap p e a l s th e s up p r e s s i o n o f th e p ost -M

ira nda state m en t. W e af fi rm the 1 7 d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’s s up p r e s s i o n o f th e s t a t e me n tb e c au s e th e mi d s t r e a m M ira nda w ar

nin g 18 w as ine ff

ec tiv e in inf

orm ing Fi le m on of h is M

ira nda rig ht s. Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S. a t 61 7.20

1 { 38} It is we ll-established th at before any person is the subject of a cus todial po lice 2 interrogation, the susp ect m ust be advised of his o r her M ira nda rights. 384 U. S. at 3 44 4. M

ira nda is int en de d to pr ote ct asus pect ’s c onst itu tio na l r igh t a ga ins t 4 se lf -i nc ri m ination an d requ ir es that, f or astate m en t t o be a dm iss ibl e at tr ia l, the 5 sus pe ct be a dvi se d o f the r igh t and the of fi ce r obt ai n akno w ing , int el lig en t, and 6 vo lu nt ary waiv er o f th e su sp ect ’s rig ht to sel f

- i n c r im in at io n. Id
. a t 46 8. Ava lid 7 w a i v e r i s m a d e f

r e e f r o m “ i n t i m i d a t i o n , c o e r c i o n , o r d e c e p t i o n ” a n d “ w ith a f ull 8 aw ar en es s of

both th e na tur e of

the ri ght be ing abandon ed

and the c onse que nc es of 9 the decision to abandon it.” M oran v . B urbi ne , 475 U. S. 412, 421 (198 6). 10 { 39} It is undis puted th at Filem on was subje ct t o a cus todial in terrogation when 1 1 Cap t ai n He rn an d ez i n t ervi ew ed him , tr iggering th e re quirem ent ofM ira nda w ar

nin gs. 12 See 384 U
. S. at 467. Be ca use Fi le m on w as at thi s poi nt f irm ly in pol ic e cu sto dy

and 13 not pr ovi de d w ithhis M

ira nda warnings, the State c oncedes that the unwarned 14 statem ent to Captain He rnandez was properly supp ressed. How ever, the State argues 15 that the dis tr ic t c ourt erre d insup pr es sin g F ile m on’ s po st-M ira nda state m en t t o 16 D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo
. T he S ta te c ite s O r e g o n v . E lst ad , an dar g u es th at Fi l emo n ’s 17 post -M

ira nda state m en t is adm iss ibl e be ca use his pr e- and p ost -M

ira nda state m en ts 18 we re vo luntary . 470 U. S. 298, 309 (198 5) (stating thatM ira nda doe s no t pr ec lud e the21

1 adm issio n of a statem ent that is unwarned but vol untary and uncoerced). 2 { 40} W e dis ag re e. Fi rs t, the St at e pla ce s im pr ope r em

pha sis on the vol unt ar ine ss o f 3 th e st at em en ts eli ci te d a t t he po li ce s ta ti on . Se e D ic ke rso n , 530 U
. S. a t 43 6 4 (o ve rr uli ng a st at

ute that e lim inate d M

ira nda ’ s war

ning requirem ent and design ated 5 “ vol unt ar ine ss a s th e tou ch sto ne of a dm iss ibi lity ”)
. T he tou ch sto ne quest ionis not 6 whether a statem ent was voluntary , but w hether the M ira nda w ar

nin gs w er e ad equa te 7 to in fo rm

th e su sp ectof h is or h er ri gh ts . Se e Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S. a t 608-09. T he 8 M ira nda w ar

nin gs g ive n to Fi le m on w er e not a de qua te to inf

orm him of his r igh ts. 9 Second, the m anner in which the M ira nda w a rn i n g s w e r e g i v e n r e n d e r edthe 10 statem ent e l i c i t e d by

De tective Castillo presum ptivelycoerc ed. T herefor e, the district 11 court’ s supp ression of the statem ents was proper. 12 { 41} T he U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co ur

t ha s de ci de d tw o c as es r el ev an t t o th e 13 discuss ion of whether a warned statem ent is adm i s sible following an un warned 14 state m en t: E lstad an d Se ibe rt . 15 { 42} T he que sti on i n E lstad w as w he the r a sus pe ct ’ s po st-M ir anda statem ent was 16 adm issib le afte r the suspect had already m ade an incrim inating statem ent to a police 17 of fi ce r. 470 U
. S. a t 30 0. I n E lstad , two o ff i ce rs we nt to a susp ect’ s hous e w ith an 18 arre st warran t. Id

. One officer sat down with t he susp ect in his livin g room and asked22

1 if t he su sp ectkn ew th e v ic ti m . Id

. at 301. T he suspect said he did , and was aware that 2 th e vi ct im ha d be e n b u r g la riz ed
. Id

. Whe n th e of

fi ce r state d th at

he f el t tha t the 3 susp ect w as involv ed, the suspect stated: “ Ye s, I wa s there. ” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio n 4 m ark s o m it te d) . The s us pe ctha d n ot be en ad vi se d o f hi s ri gh ts . Id

. T he of fi ce r did not 5 co nti nue to que sti on the sus pe ct , but ins te ad e sc orte d the susp ec t to apa tr ol c ar , and 6 to okhi m

to th e sh eri ff’s h ead qu art ers . Id

. Approxim ately

an h our later, the suspect 7 w as giv enhis M

ira nda warn in gs . Id

. T he sus pe ct

sa id h e unde rs too d hi s r igh ts, sti ll 8 wis he d t o s pe akto th e o ffi cers , and th en ga ve a fu ll st at em en t. Id

. at 301- 02. 9 Su bse que ntl y , the sus pe ct

w as c harg ed

w ith bur glary

and m ove d to sup pr es s hi s 10 se co nd s ta te m en t, arg uin g th at the f ir st unw ar

ne d st at em en t “ le t the c at out of the 11 ba g” an d t ai nt edhi s s e co ndst at em en t. Id

. a t 30 2 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and 12 citation om itted). T he E lst ad Court held that while the first s t atem ent was 13 inadm issib le, the second statem ent wa s ad m issib le, because neither statem ent was 14 co er ce d, and the se co nd s ta te m en t w as obt ai ne d a ft er c ar ef ul a dm ini str at ionof 15 M ira nda warn in gs an d afte r a vo lu nt ary waiv er of th e su sp ect ’s rig ht s. Id

. a t 31 0- 11, 16 17- 18. 17 { 43} The C ourt r ev i s i t ed the questio n of whether a second, w arned statem ent was 1 8 a d m i s s i b l e a f

t e r a f i r s t , u n w a rn e d s t a t e m e n tin Se ibe rt . 542 U
. S. a t 60 6- 07. T he23

1 plura lity

in Se ibe rt

li m ite d E lstad

to its f acts and held that th e re levant questio n was 2 not th e volunt ariness of the two statem ents, bu t whether the M ira nda warnings g iven 3 after the first statem ent wer e ef fective in inform ing the susp ect of her constitu tional 4 rig ht s. Se ibe rt , 54 2 U. S. at 61 5. I n Se ibe rt , the sus pe ct w as arr es te d, take n to the 5 police station , and qu estioned for an extended period of t im e p rior to being giv en her 6 M ira nda warn in gs . Id

. a t 60 4- 05. T he pol ic e of

fi ce r el ic ite d af

ull c onf es sio n f ro m the 7 su sp ect . Id

. T he sus pe ct w as the n giv en a tw en ty -m inu te br eak, Mi randi zed , and 8 qu es ti on eda se co ndti m e b y t he same po li ce o ffi cer i n t he same loc at io n. Id

. at 9 604- 05, 616
. In the se co nd i nte rv ie w , the of fi ce r as ke d th e sus pe ct

to re pe at the 10 inf orm at ionshe ha d gi ve n inhe r fi rs t st at em en t and re m ind ed the sus pe ct of w ha t sh e 11 ha d s ai d p rio r to be in g a dv is edof h er ri gh ts . Id

. 12 { 44} Indis tin gui shi ng Se ibe rt ’s f a c t s f r o m E lstad ’ s, the Co urt l ist ed f ac ts r el ev an t 13 to determ ining whether m idstream

M ira nda w ar

nin gs ar e ef

fe ct ive in inf

orm ing a 14 sus pe ct

of his or he r co nst itu tio na l r igh ts: 15 the c om

ple te ne ss and d et ai l of

the que sti ons an d answ er s inthe f ir st 16 ro und of

in te rro ga tio n, the ove rl ap pin g c ont en t of the tw o st at em en ts, 1 7 t h e t i m i n g an d s et t i n g o f t h e f i rs tan ds ec o n d[r o u n d s o f i n t erro g at i o n ], 18 the c ont inu ity

of pol ic e pe rs onne l, and the degr ee to whic h th e 19 int er

ro ga tor ’ s qu es tio ns tre at ed the se co nd r ound a s c ont inu ous w iththe 20 fir st .24

1 Se ibe rt , 5 42 U
. S
. a t6 15
. The Se ibe rt Co urt de te rm ine d th at

the f ir st and s ec ond 2 interviews w ere e ffec tively continu ous: b oth were held in the sam e location, the break 3 betwee n the first and second interview was lim ited, and the police office r re fere nced 4 state m en ts the sus pe ct

m ad e dur ing the f

ir st i nte rv ie ww hil e co nduc tin g th e se co nd 5 in te rv ie w. Id

. at 604-05, 616-17. Furtherm ore, the officer did no t rem edy

the initial 6 failure to war n b y i nform ing th e suspect that her first statem ent could no t be used 7 ag ai ns t h er attri al
. Id . at 616. The Se ibe rt Court held that the susp ect’ s constit ution al 8 rights were vio lated because the M ira nda w ar

nin gs g ive n w er e ine ff

ec tiv e in 9 inf orm ing the sus pe ct

that sh e ha d age nui ne r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt and the re fo re , the 10 post -M

ira nda st at em en t was in ad m is si bl e. Se ibe rt , 542 U
. S. a t 61 7. 11 { 45} In distin guish ing th e Se ibe rt int er ro ga tio n f ro m the int er ro ga tio n in E lstad , the 12 Se ibe rt

Court noted that th e E lstad qu es ti on in g was “ a n ew an d d is ti nc t ex pe rie nc e,” 13 such that “ the M

ira nda w ar

nin gs c oul d have m ad e se nse a s pr esen ti ng a genuin e 14 choice whether to f

ollow up on the ear lier adm issio n.” Se ib er t, 542 U
. S. at 616
. T he 15 scope of the pre-M

ira nda que sti oni ng i n E lstad and Se ibe rt w as categ or ic al ly 16 dif fe re nt. I n E lstad , the pol ic e of fi ce r as ke d th e sus pe ct on e qu es tio n, and the 17 int er ro ga tio n im

m ed ia te ly c ea se d w he n th e sus pe ct

gave an in cr im inatin g st at em en t. 18 470 U
. S. a t 30 1- 02. I n Se ibe rt , the sus pe ct w as que sti one d e xte nsi ve ly and g av e a fu ll25

1 co nf es sio n be fo re be ing Mi randi ze d. 542 U
. S. a t 60 4- 05. 2 { 46} T his c as e be ar s no ta ble sim ilari tie s to S

e i b er t . Like Se ibe rt , F ilem on was 3 que sti one d e xte nsi ve ly and g av e a fu ll co nf

es sio n be fo re he w as giv enhis M ira nda 4 warnings. Af

ter D etective Ca stillo gave Filem on the M ira nda w a rn i n g s , D e t e c t i ve 5 Ca sti llo tol d F ile m on t o “ start f ro m the be gin nin g like y ou did a w hil e ag o, ” as kin g 6 him to re pe at his pr ior co nf es sio n, an d en sur ing that the co nte nt of the second 7 state m en t c om

ple te ly ove rl ap pe d w iththe c ont en t of the f ir st s ta te m en t. T he la ck

of 8 break betw een the first and secondinterviews, and the fact that D etective Ca stillo wa s 9 pr es en t for both, furthe r co ntr ibu te d to the c ont inu ous na tur e of the tw o in te rv ie w s. 10 A ddi tio nall y , r athe r than takin g any c ur at ive m ea sur es to en sur e that F ile m on 11 understoo d t h at t h e p re-M ira nda confession he gave to Captain Hernandez w as 12 inadm issib le, De tective Castillo did the oppo site and told Filem on and his m other that 13 the M ira nda warnings we re m erely a “ form ality .” The Se ibe rt Court recognized that 14 “ w he n M

ira nda w ar

nin gs are ins er

te d in th e m ids t of

c oor din at ed

and c ont inu ing 15 in terro ga tio n, the y

are li ke ly

to m isl ea d and d ep ri ve ade fe ndant o f know le dge 16 es se nti al to his ab ili ty to unde rs tand the na tur e of his ri ght s an d th e co nse que nc es of 17 ab an doni ng the m . ” 542 U
. S. a t 61 3- 14 ( al te ratio n, int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, and 18 citation om itted). T his is p recisely what happened here. The M ira nda warnings g iven26

1 to F ile m on b y

D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo w er e not a de qua te to info rm hi m of his 2 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s a s r e qu i r e db y M ira nda j urisprudence. 3 { 47} Given the m anner in which the interview wa s conducted, it would have been 4 unr ea sona

ble f or F ilem on to b el ie ve that he ha d age nui ne r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt. 5 Whil e Fi le m on’ s m oth er w as pr es en t, the re is no e vid en ce that sh e he rs el f unde rs too d 6 t h e mi d s t r e a m M

ira nda w ar

nin gs . S he did

not c ouns el or

a dvi se F ile m on d

ur ing 7 either of the interview s and left it up to h im to decide whether he wanted to answer 8 the of fi ce rs ’ que sti ons. F ile m on h ad a lr ea dy m ad e a fu ll co nf

es sio n to Ca

pta in 9 H er nande z be fo re he w as a dvi se d of his r igh ts. F urthe rm or e, w he n D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo 1 0 b e g an t o i n t e rv i e wF i l e mo n , h e t o l dF i l e mo n th a th e wa s “ g o n n a g o t h e s a me w a y” 11 as Captain H ernandez and that he wa s j ust “ finishin g up” where Captain He rnandez 12 le ft of f, giv ing the im

pres sion th at

the int er vie ww as j ust

ac ont inu at ionof

the 13 interview c ondu cted by Captain Hernandez. De tective Castillo did n ot m ake it clear 14 that F ile m on c oul d st op t al kin g. Be ca use of the co er ci ve ta ct ic s e m plo y ed by Ca pta in 15 He rnandez and De tective Castillo, Filem on was not provid ed with a “ real c hoice 16 betwee n talking and not talki ng.” Se e id. a t 60 1. T he S ta te did not m ee t i ts b ur de n in 1 7 p r o v i n g th a t t h e mi d s t r e a m M ira nda w ar

nin gs w er e suf

fi ci en t t o in fo rm

F ile m on o f 18 his r igh t a ga ins t se lf

-i nc ri m inatio n.27

1 { 48} The M

ira nda warn in gs are no t a m ere fo rm al it y . M ira nda warnings g iven after 2 a co nf es sio n are li ke lyto be “ ine ff ec tiv e in p re pari ng the sus pe ct f or suc ce ssi ve 3 interrogation, close in tim e and s i m i lar in content.” Id

. a t 61 3. P oli ce m

ust take the 4 utm ost c ar e to e nsur e that the su sp ect not onl y und er stands the m eanin g of the 5 M ira nda w ar

nin gs, but al so unde rs tands the na tur e of the ri ght s be ing abandon ed and 6 th e co ns eque nc es of t he de ci si on to ab an do n t he m . Se e M oran , 475 U
. S. a t 42 1. 7 M ira nda w ar

nin gs m ust be giv enin a m an ne r that i s c le ar ly suf fi ci en t t o grant the 8 sus pe ct an aw ar en es s of the ri ght so the sus pe ct c anm ak e a know ing , int el lig en t and 9 vo lu nt ary ch oi ce t o s pe ak
. Se e M ira nda , 384 U
. S. a t 46 7. T he ta ct ic s e m plo y ed by 10 Ca pta in H er

nande z an d D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo w er e pr es um pt iv el y c oe rc ive and 1 1 e v i s c e r a t e dth e p r o t e c t i o n s e n v i s i o n e db y M ira nda , rendering the warnings—when 12 they w er e fi na lly

giv en —i ne ff ec tiv e to i nf

orm F ile m on tha t he ha d ar igh t no t t o 13 inc ri m inate him se lf

. W e upho ld the dis tr ic t co urt’ s de te rm inatio n th at the state m en t 14 el ic ite d by

D et ec tiv e Ca sti llo is ina dm iss ibl e. Be ca use the state m en t i s in adm iss ibl e 15 as a m at te r of

fed eral law, itis als o i na dm is si bl e u nd er Se ct io n 3 2A- 2- 14
. See Javier 16 M. , 200 1- N MS C- 030, ¶ 11. 17 { 49} W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s su

ppr es sio n of

the tw o c ont es te d st at em en ts and 18 re m an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.28

1 { 50} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice
4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 12 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice