Document: 511 U.S. 318114 S.Ct. 1526128 L.Ed.2d 293 Robert Edward STANSBURY, Petitioner,v.CALIFORNIA. No. 93-5770. Supreme Court of the United States April 26, 1994. PER CURIAM. 1 This case concerns rules for determining whether a person being questioned by law enforcement officers is held in custody, and thus entitled to warnings required Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). We hold, not first time, that an officer's subjective undisclosed view concerning interrogated suspect irrelevant assessment custody. 2 * Ten-year old Robyn Jackson disappeared from playground Baldwin Park, California, at around 6:30 p.m. on September 28, 1982. Early next morning, about 10 miles away Pasadena, Andrew Zimmerman observed large man emerge turquoise American sedan throw something into nearby flood control channel. called police, who arrived scene discovered girl's body There was evidence she had been raped, cause death determined be asphyxia complicated blunt force trauma head. 3 Lieutenant Thomas Johnston, detective with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, investigated homicide. From witnesses interviewed day discovered, he learned talked two ice cream truck drivers, one petitioner Stansbury, hours before her disappearance. Given these contacts, Johnston thought Stansbury other driver might have some connection homicide or knowledge thereof, but reasons unimportant here considered only leading suspect. After brought interrogation, asked Officer Lee Park Police Department contact see if would come questioning as potential witness. 4 three plainclothes Stansbury's trailer home 11:00 evening. The surrounded door knocked. When answered, told him were investigating which possible witness accompany them police station answer questions. agreed interview accepted ride front seat Lee's car. 5 At station, presence another officer, his whereabouts activities during afternoon evening 28. Neither nor officer issued warnings. (among things) 28th spoke victim 6:00, returned after work 9:00, left midnight housemate's turquoise, American-made last detail aroused Johnston's suspicions, car matched description Pasadena. response further question, admitted prior convictions rape, kidnaping child molestation, terminated advised rights. declined make statements, requested attorney, arrested. Respondent State California charged first-degree murder crimes. 6 filed pretrial motion suppress all statements made result those statements. trial court denied relevant part, ruling "in custody"—and warnings—until mentioned taken drive. Before stage interview, reasoned, "the focus [Lieutenant Johnston's] mind certainly [truck] driver"; "after Mr. comment . describing turquoise-colored automobile" did suspicions "shif[t] Stansbury." Based upon its conclusion custody until focused him, permitted prosecution introduce case-in-chief time. trial, jury convicted murder, kidnaping, lewd act under age 14, fixed penalty death. 7 affirmed. set out what it viewed applicable legal standard: 8 "In deciding issue, totality circumstances relevant, no factor dispositive. However, most important considerations include (1) site (2) investigation has subject, (3) objective indicia arrest are present, (4) length form questioning." Cal.4th 1017, 1050, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 174, 193, 846 P.2d 756, 775 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 proceeded analyze second detail, end accepting court's factual determination "that suspicion [Stansbury] when driven night crime." Id., 1052, Cal.Rptr.2d, P.2d, 776. "conclude[d] subject custodial interrogation car," approved supra, bar admission point. Cal.4th, 1054, 195-196, 777-778. granted certiorari. 510 ----, 114 380, 126 330 (1993). II 11 "taken otherwise deprived freedom action any significant way" must "be warned right remain silent, statement does may used against either retained appointed." U.S., 444, 1612. Statements elicited noncompliance this rule certain purposes criminal trial. Compare id., 492, 494, S.Ct., 1637, 1638, Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 (1971). An obligation administer attaches, however, "only where there such restriction person's render 'in custody.' " Oregon Mathiason, 429 495, 97 711, 714, 50 714 (1977) (per curiam); also Illinois Perkins, 496 292, 296, 110 2394, 2396, 243 (1990). In individual examine surrounding ultimate inquiry simply [was] 'formal restraint movement' degree associated formal arrest." Beheler, 463 1121, 1125, 103 3517, 3520, 77 1275 (1983) curiam) (quoting 714). 12 Our decisions clear initial depends views harbored interrogating questioned. Beckwith States, 425 341, 96 1612, 48 (1976), example, defendant, without rights, incriminating Government agents private home. He later extended cover non-custodial suspect." 345, 1615 found argument unpersuasive, explaining "was compulsive aspect strength content government's time conducted, led impose requirements regard 346-347, 1616 As result, we concluded defendant warnings: "Although 'focus' indeed ., hardly himself situation described basis holding." 347, 1616. 13 Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 104 3138, 82 317 (1984), reaffirmed conclusions reached Beckwith. concerned roadside motorist detained traffic stop. decided even though "apparently soon [the motorist] stepped offense." 442, 3151. reason, explained, "never communicated intention to" questioning. Ibid. lack communication crucial, "[a] policeman's unarticulated plan bearing question custody' particular time"; rather, how reasonable suspect's shoes understood situation." Other cases ours consistent adhering understanding element Miranda. See, e.g., ("Nor requirement imposed because whom "); 1124, n. 2, 3519, ("Our holding Mathiason reflected our earlier decision [Beckwith], rejected notion satisfied merely investigation"); Minnesota Murphy, 465 431, 1136, 1144, 79 409 (1984) ("The mere fact trigger need noncustodial settings, probation intent outcome case") (citation omitted); cf. Pennsylvania Bruder, 488 9, 11, 109 205, 207, 102 172 (1988). 14 It well settled, then, suspect, undisclosed, bear See F. Inbau, J. Reid, & Buckley, Criminal Interrogation Confessions 232, 236, 297-298 (3d ed. 1986). same principle obtains instance, cannot expect probe innermost thoughts. Save they manifested questioned, evolving do affect inquiry. "The threat citizen's Fifth Amendment rights designed neutralize little suspicions." Berkemer, 435, 22, 3147, 22. 15 beliefs issue conveyed, word deed, Cf. Michigan Chesternut, 486 567, 575, 7, 108 1975, 1980, 100 565 (1988) (citing Mendenhall, 446 544, 554, 6, 1870, 1877, 64 497 (1980) (opinion Stewart, J.)). Those extent position gauge breadth 'freedom action.' 440, 3150. Even prime not, itself, dispositive suspects free go decide arrest. weight pertinence communications regarding will depend facts case. sum, nature culpability among many factors somehow affected perceive leave. (Of course, instances arise testing credibility account happened interrogation; surroundings, views, inquiry.) state record Court's analysis respects foregoing principles. Numerous opinion open interpretation regarded officers' status (or nonsuspect) themselves, rather than influenced conditions interrogation. ("whether ha[d] the" "most considerations" assessing custody). So understood, conflicts precedents. apparent triggered virtue become 776, 777-778; cf., Blanding, 69 Haw. 583, 586-587, 752 99, 101 (1988); Hartman, 703 S.W.2d 106, 120 (Tenn.1985), cert. denied, 478 1010, 106 3308, 92 721 (1986); People Herdon, 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, 10, 116 Cal.Rptr. 641, 645, (1974), incorrect well. clear, uncertain terms, their (assuming undisclosed) generally W. LaFave Israel, Procedure § 6.6(a), pp. 489-490 (1984). acknowledges thereof) Miranda, house interview. maintains, support finding contrast, asserts show entire think appropriate consider instance. therefore reverse judgment remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 so ordered. 19 Justice BLACKMUN, concurring. 20 I join per curiam add that, persuaded reversed stated opinion, adhere my fairly within constraints Constitution. dissent Callins Collins, 1127, 1128, 127 435 (1994). vacate sentence ground, too.

Category: 0