Opinion ID: 553880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Advice Given by Officers

Text: 27 The most obvious and effective means of demonstrating that a suspect has not been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of ... freedom of action, Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, is for the police to inform the suspect that an arrest is not being made and that the suspect may terminate the interview at will. Where a suspect has been so advised, custody has frequently been found to not exist. Davis v. Allsbrooks, 778 F.2d 168, 171 (4th Cir.1985) (informing a suspect that he is not under arrest is one factor frequently considered to show lack of custody), citing, Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Helmel, 769 F.2d at 1306 (significant to finding of lack of custody that [the suspect] was specifically informed that he was not under arrest). 4 An important factor noted by this Court in finding an absence of custody in United States v. Jones, a case factually similar to this one, was that Jones was informed that she was not under arrest and that she need not answer any questions. Jones, 630 F.2d at 616. By the same token, the absence of police advisement that the suspect is not under formal arrest, or that the suspect is at liberty to decline to answer questions, has been identified as an important indicium of the existence of a custodial setting. See Minnick v. Mississippi, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 486, 492, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990) (Miranda implicated by formal interview which petitioner was compelled to attend); Carter, 884 F.2d at 368 (custody where suspect was not told he was free to leave or that he did not have to answer questions). 5 28