Opinion ID: 1444405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Taylor's pre-arrest statements

Text: The state contends that Taylor's incriminating statements made prior to his arrest are admissible because he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. We agree. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination provides that a suspect's statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible at trial unless the police first provide a Miranda warning. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) (privilege applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). To determine whether a custodial interrogation has taken place, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the site of the interrogation, whether the objective indicia of an arrest are present, [1] and the length and form of questioning. See Alward v. State, 112 Nev. 141, 155, 912 P.2d 243, 252 (1996). An individual is not in custody for purposes of Miranda where police officers only question an individual on-scene regarding the facts and circumstances of a crime or ask other questions during the fact-finding process, see Garcia v. Singletary, 13 F.3d 1487, 1489 (11th Cir.1994), or where the individual questioned is merely the focus of a criminal investigation. See United States v. Jones, 21 F.3d 165, 170 (7th Cir.1994). Rather, an individual is deemed in custody where there has been a formal arrest, or where there has been a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest so that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. See United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 598 (5th Cir.1988); United States v. Moya, 74 F.3d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir.1996). A suspect's or the police's subjective view of the circumstances does not determine whether the suspect is in custody. See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). We conclude that the totality of the circumstances makes evident that Taylor was not in custody when the statements at the airport were made. [2] The officers did not physically move or restrain Taylor during their brief questioning of him, did not handcuff Taylor or draw their guns, and neither accused Taylor of anything nor informed him that he was not free to leave. See Moya, 74 F.3d at 1119. Taylor did not ask to leave and did not make any statements that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he would be arrested immediately. See id. Additionally, Taylor was not under arrest at the time he made his statements, he voluntarily responded to the officers' questions, he could move about freely during the questioning, and the officers did not employ strong-arm tactics or deception. See United States v. McKinney, 88 F.3d 551, 554 (8th Cir.1996). Thus, we conclude Taylor was not in custody prior to his formal arrest for purposes of Miranda. Accordingly, his pre-arrest statements are admissible.