Opinion ID: 3014560
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Vidal in Custody?

Text: Vidal argues that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was subjected to a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings having been administered. A “custodial interrogation” is questioning “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.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 298 (1980) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). The government does not dispute that Vidal was interrogated, but argues that he was not in custody at the time and, thus, that the motion to suppress was properly denied. “This Court reviews the District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual findings and exercises plenary review of the District Court’s application of the law to those facts.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 859 (2002) (citing United States v. Riddick, 156 F.3d 505, 509 (3d Cir. 1998)). A “custodial interrogation is not susceptible of an exact definition ... the determination ... must be made on a case-by-case basis.” United States v. Leese, 176 F.3d 740, 743 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 798 (3d Cir. 1974), and United States v. Clark, 425 F.2d 827 (3d Cir. 1970)). “[T]he ultimate inquiry is: ‘whether there is a “formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’” Id. (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1993) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)). “Where, as here, the 6 individual has not been openly arrested when the statements are made, ‘something must be said or done by the authorities, either in their manner of approach or in the tone or extent of their questioning, which indicates they would not have heeded a request to depart or to allow the suspect to do so.’” Leese, 176 F.3d at 743 (quoting Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 799 (3d Cir. 1974) (quoting United States v. Hall, 421 F.2d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 1969)). We must use an objective standard when considering the circumstances of Vidal’s interrogation. “[T]he initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 (1994). The question is whether “a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). Following the suppression hearing, Judge Ackerman found that “the circumstances in this case do not amount to a custodial setting .... There is no indication in this case that M r. Vidal’s freedom was restricted in any significant way.” Specifically, he found that Vidal was not placed under arrest; that Vidal’s statements were made in his home, at his kitchen table in an interview of approximately one hour and fifteen minutes; that the agents informed Vidal of the search warrant; that the agents read to Vidal the consent form for searching his office; that Vidal knew exactly what was on the form 7 voluntarily signed it, that at no point was his will overborne; and that Vidal was free to leave. Judge Ackerman was not troubled by the fact that fourteen agents were involved. We agree that Vidal was not in custody while he was being questioned. First, none of the most obvious indicia of custody were present. Vidal was never formally arrested, frisked, told he could not stop the questioning, or told he could not leave. Furthermore, the interrogation took place in Vidal’s home, not in a police station or other more intimidating location.2 Second, the record does not show that Vidal was subject to much less overcome by coercive tactics. His requests to get dressed, use the bathroom, and take his medication were honored; he appeared to be calm and was cooperative throughout the questioning; his wife offered the agents coffee; and his daughter sat on his lap. These facts, and others, convince us that this was not a custodial situation. See, e.g., Leese, 176 F.3d at 744 (defendant not in custody where, inter alia, her requests were honored and the record did not show her will was overcome by coercive tactics). And, while we have been given some pause by the number of agents involved, only three agents were with Vidal in the kitchen during the questioning. 2 We recognize that it is not dispositive that the questioning took place in Vidal's home. See Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326-27 (1969) (interrogation was custodial even though the defendant’s statements were made in his own room at a boarding house, because officers testified that defendant was not free to go). Nevertheless, the location clearly made it less likely, given the other circumstances, that a reasonable person in Vidal’s position would have felt he was unable to end the questioning. 8 The denial of the motion to suppress will be affirmed.