Opinion ID: 6357541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Hopkins's Statements in her Initial Interview With the Deputy Were Made During a Custodial Interrogation

Text: [¶ 36] When a person has been subjected to an in-custody interrogation but has not been advised of his Miranda rights, the State may not offer the statements made during that interrogation against that person in its case-in-chief. State v. Perry , 2017 ME 74 , ¶ 15, 159 A.3d 840 ; see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). A defendant is considered in custody when subject to either a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement to the degree associated with formal arrest. See State v. Michaud , 1998 ME 251 , ¶ 4, 724 A.2d 1222 . To determine if a person was in custody for Miranda purposes, a court must objectively review the pertinent circumstances to decide whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt free to terminate the interaction with law enforcement or if there was a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest. Perry , 2017 ME 74 , ¶ 15, 159 A.3d 840 . [¶ 37] In making this determination, we consider a number of factors, viewing them in their totality, including: (1) the locale where the defendant made the statements; (2) the party who initiated the contact; (3) the existence or nonexistence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent communicated to the defendant); (4) subjective views, beliefs, or intent that the police manifested to the defendant, to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave; (5) subjective views or beliefs that the defendant manifested to the police, to the extent the officer's response would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave; (6) the focus of the investigation (as a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive it); (7) whether the suspect was questioned in familiar surroundings; (8) the number of law enforcement officers present;  (9) the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect; and (10) the duration and character of the interrogation. Michaud , 1998 ME 251 , ¶ 4, 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶ 38] Review of these factors establishes that Hopkins was not in custody at any point during her initial interview with the deputy. Hopkins initiated this interview seeking help following the 9-1-1 call concerning her baby. Hopkins was coherent and understandable during the interview, the interview occurred in her home, the deputy was the only officer involved during this interview, and the conversation maintained a calm tone throughout. There was no point at which a reasonable person in Hopkins's position would have felt that she was not free to terminate the interrogation and leave. See State v. Bragg , 2012 ME 102 , ¶ 8, 48 A.3d 769 . The court did not err in concluding that Hopkins was not in custody for purposes of Miranda .