Opinion ID: 2585950
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Legal Concept of Custodial Interrogation

Text: ¶33 To apply the three-factor mixed question test set forth. above, we must first understand the legal concept of custodial interrogation, which trial courts apply to the facts of each case. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that a person shall not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. We protect this right by excluding from a defendant's criminal trial any incriminating statement that the defendant made to police officers while under custodial interrogation if the officers did not give a Miranda warning. [41] ¶34 Generally, custodial interrogation consists of questioning or use of other techniques of persuasion 'initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' [42] Thus, custodial interrogation occurs where there is both (1) custody or other significant deprivation of a suspect's freedom and (2) interrogation. These two elements are interrelated. ¶35 We often describe the first element as an inquiry into whether a suspect was in custody. A person is in custody when [the person's] freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. [43] The inquiry is objective and considers how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation. [44] A suspect may understand himself or herself to be in custody based either on physical evidence or on the nature of the officer's instructions and questions. Therefore, we focus on both the evidence of restraint and on objective evidence of the officers' intentions. [45] As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, [A]n officer's views concerning the nature of an interrogation, or beliefs concerning the potential culpability of the individual being questioned, may be one among many factors that bear upon the assessment whether that individual was in custody, but only if the officer's views or beliefs were somehow manifested to the individual under interrogation and would have affected how a reasonable person in that position would perceive his or her freedom to leave. [46] ¶36 For instance, when investigatory questioning shifts to accusatory questioning, the existence of custody is likely because this often indicates to the defendant that he or she is not free to leave. By making accusations, the police officer indicates that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. [47] In Salt Lake City v. Carner, [48] we set forth four factors that aid in determining whether a defendant is in custody for purposes. of the Miranda protections: [49] (1) the site of interrogation; (2) whether the investigation focused on the accused; (3) whether the objective indicia of arrest were present; and (4) the length and form of interrogation. [50] ¶37 Once a trial court determines that the defendant was in custody, it must then decide whether the incriminating statement was the product of interrogation. [51] Interrogation is either express questioning or its functional equivalent and it incorporates any words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. [52]