Opinion ID: 553880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restraint

Text: 29 We have often looked upon the lack of restraint on a suspect's freedom of movement during questioning, the second indicium of custody, as a factor indicating absence of custody. Circumstances of custody are frequently obviated where the suspect's freedom of action is not curtailed during questioning. In Jorgensen this Court found significant the fact that during questioning the interviewing officers allowed Jorgensen to go by himself to an unlocked, unguarded section of the F.B.I. offices to speak to his brother. We stated that [t]his kind of latitude is clearly inconsistent with custodial interrogation. Jorgensen, 871 F.2d at 729; Beckwith, 425 U.S. at 343, 96 S.Ct. at 1614 (no custody where suspect permitted to move about his home unaccompanied). 6 This second factor is related to the first factor in that both concern the suspect's liberty during questioning and the suspect's subjective assessment of the circumstances. Though it is often the case that suspects are escorted or chaperoned during questioning for reasons unrelated to custody, as in this case where Agent Waldie testified that he was concerned for the safety of himself and his partner, the relevant inquiry is the effect on the suspect, Carter, 884 F.2d at 373, citing, Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 422, 104 S.Ct. at 3141. The bare fact of physical restraint does not itself invoke Miranda, (Wilson v. Coon, 808 F.2d 688, 689 (8th Cir.1987)), only that restraint which is of a degree associated with formal arrest. Beheler, 463 U.S. at 1125, 103 S.Ct. at 3520. We realize that the likely effect on a suspect of being placed under guard during questioning, or told to remain in the sight of interrogating officials, is to associate these restraints with a formal arrest. Carter, 884 F.2d at 372 (custody where suspect told just stay here); Long, 465 F.2d at 68 (custody where suspect continually chaperoned). 7 30