Opinion ID: 2545905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Miranda vis-a-vis Collins

Text: As a general rule, it is left to the trial court to determine whether a person conducting an interrogation is acting as an agent of law enforcement. The trial court's conclusions on credibility and weight of the testimony are to be accorded great weight and will not be overturned unless they are not supported by the evidence. State v. Anderson, 06-2978, p. 25 (La.2008) 996 So.2d 973, 994. The only witness to testify at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress was Collins, thus the relevant facts are undisputed. On a motion to suppress where the facts are not in dispute, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial court came to the proper legal determination under the undisputed facts. State v. Pham, 2001-2199, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/22/03), 839 So.2d 214, 218. Apparently the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, i.e., because Collins was an agent of the State of Louisiana and defendant was in custody, it applied a bright line rule and found Miranda rights were triggered before Collins interviewed the defendant. Because this was error and the trial court did not make a fact-driven determination, we will review the record de novo to determine whether Collins was acting as an agent of law enforcement when she interviewed defendant. It is undisputed Collins did not work for the police department and had no authority to make an arrest. The police did not ask her to interview defendant. Significantly, she had not spoken with police or prosecutors at any time prior to interviewing him. The purpose of her visit and report was to determine whether Claudia, defendant's live-in girlfriend, was a fit parent. She did not interview defendant in order to investigate the criminal allegations against him, nor were the charges brought against defendant increased as a result of Collins' report. Moreover, Collins specifically told defendant she was not there to interrogate him regarding his alleged crimes and, further, she would leave if he did not want to talk to her. Most importantly, there is no evidence the police purposefully used, manipulated, or were in cahoots with Collins for purposes of conducting the interview on their behalf. As we held in State v. Phillips, 444 So.2d 1196, 1199 (La.1984), there is absolutely no evidence of a team effort between Collins and the police to break down defendant's defenses via cooperative interrogation. Under these circumstances, we find Collins was not required to give defendant his Miranda rights before she interviewed him. [7] Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been denied.