Opinion ID: 3134205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Beheler

Text: What happened to Smith in the police station is not unusual. As Professor Charles Weisselberg has extensively SMITH V. CLARK 9 documented, police officers in California are specifically instructed to inform suspects that they are “not under arrest” in order to “ma[k]e certain that the interrogation w[ill] be seen as non-custodial.” Charles D. Weisselberg, Mourning Miranda, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1519, 1542–44 (2008). This is known as a “Beheler admonishment,” after California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (per curiam). The defendant in Beheler, who gave an inculpatory statement to the police, had been “specifically told that he was not under arrest.” Id. at 1122. The California police academies have interpreted Beheler to mean that, if a police officer says the magic words, telling a suspect that he is “not under arrest,” the suspect will not be found to have been in “custody” under Miranda. Beheler admonishments play a major role in instructional material produced by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”). As Weisselberg documents, one set of POST training materials describe Beheler as “a wonderful case for use.” Weisselberg, supra, at 1542. Another POST course dramatizes the use of Beheler admonishments on a suspect in connection with “the full toolkit of interrogation tactics,” including confrontation and minimization techniques (the use of sympathy and justifications to induce a confession). Id. at 1544. The same POST course features a debate between experts on whether, if a suspect attempts to exercise his right to leave the interview, the police should allow him to do so. Id. The use of Beheler admonishments is not limited to California. Cases from the federal courts, and over 31 state courts, demonstrate the use of similar tactics nationwide. Id. at 1545 nn.140–41; see, e.g., United States v. McCarty, 475 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715, 718 (8th Cir. 2004); Fitzpatrick v. State, 10 SMITH V. CLARK 900 So. 2d 495, 510 (Fla. 2005); State v. Munoz, 972 P.2d 847, 856 (N.M. 1998); State v. Hobson, 648 A.2d 1369, 1370–72 (R.I. 1994); State v. Bronson, 496 N.W.2d 882, 889 (Neb. 1993). An FBI publication from the 1980s similarly instructs federal agents to inform suspects that they are not under arrest, “thus negating the need for the [Miranda] warning.” See Charles E. Riley III, Finetuning Miranda Policies, FBI Law Enforcement Bull. 23, 24–25 (1985); see also Weisselberg, supra, at 1546 nn.145–46. As Weisselberg notes, the use of Beheler admonishments is clearly strategic in nature. Beheler admonishments help police officers (falsely) convey to suspects that they are not under suspicion, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of “soft” tactics, such as minimization, that induce confessions. But they also have an even more powerful effect. As interpreted by the police and California state courts, they serve as virtually conclusive evidence that a suspect was not in “custody” during an interrogation, and therefore that no Miranda warnings were required. In other words, they permit police officers to remove confessions from Miranda’s reach. Sometimes, it will not be possible to determine whether police officers used Beheler admonishments strategically. In this case, however, it is easy. At 3 PM, Detective Mustard entered the interview room to take over Smith’s interrogation. Before he asked Smith any questions, however, Mustard turned to Detective Fong and asked, “Are you Beheler-ing here?” Fong answered, “Yes.”