Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Statement in Cifelli's Room

Text: The Miranda requirement is triggered by custodial interrogation, i.e., questioning by law enforcement officers after a suspect has been deprived of freedom of action in a significant way. Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, 16 L.Ed. 2d at 706; State v. Smith, 307 N.J.Super. 1, 8-9, 704 A. 2d 73 (App. Div.1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 216, 708 A. 2d 67 (1998); State v. P.Z., 152 N.J. 86, 102-03, 703 A. 2d 901 (1997). In determining whether the defendant would have felt free to leave, the court should consider the nature and degree of pressure applied to detain the suspect, the duration of the questioning, the physical surroundings, and the language used by police. Smith, supra, 307 N.J.Super. at 9, 704 A. 2d 73. If the questioning is simply part of an investigation and is not targeted at the individual because she or he is a suspect, the rights provided by Miranda are not implicated. State v. Pierson, 223 N.J.Super. 62, 67, 537 A. 2d 1340 (App.Div.1988). In this case, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the oral statements made by defendant in Cifelli's room did not involve custodial interrogation and were admissible. The police questioned defendant and other neighbors in connection with the early stages of a missingchild investigation. Because the questioning took place in defendant's house, not in a police station, the location of the questioning was not inherently intimidating. The interview was not lengthy in duration and defendant was not restrained in any way. The fact that defendant was permitted to drive his own car to the police station supports the finding that defendant was free to leave. Moreover, the fact that defendant witnessed both Jenin and Cifelli emerge from questioning should have indicated he was free to leave. There is no evidence that detectives considered defendant a suspect at that point, sought to detain him, or pressured him in any fashion. Accordingly, we also conclude that the initial statements could not, and did not, taint subsequent statements made pursuant to a valid Miranda waiver.