Opinion ID: 222298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gillman’s Statements

Text: Gillman argues that the district court erred by refusing to suppress his statements to police because, under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), he was in custody once police arrived at his residence. Miranda’s protections against self-incrimination only arise once a defendant is “in custody.” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). A suspect is in custody where there has been a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. United States v. Swanson, 341 F.3d 524, 529 (6th Cir. 2003). -5- No. 09-6109 United States v. Gillman Until law enforcement discovered his marijuana, Gillman was never in custody. An in-home encounter between police and a citizen is generally non-custodial. United States v. Panak, 552 F.3d 462, 466 (6th Cir. 2009). Gillman was questioned for eighty minutes, and we have refused to find a defendant in custody during interrogations of similar length. See Panak, 552 F.3d at 467 (fortyfive to sixty minutes); United States v. Crossley, 224 F.3d 847, 862 (6th Cir. 2000) (less than sixty minutes), United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416, 420 (6th Cir. 1999) (ninety minutes). During his questioning, Gillman sat unrestrained and was told he was not (and would not be) under arrest. See United States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943, 951 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[F]reedom of movement, coupled with [the officer’s] statement to [the defendant] that he was not under arrest, is compelling evidence that [the defendant] was not in custody.”). That Gillman was arrested when officers discovered his marijuana does not make his questioning custodial. As a result, the district court did not err by denying Gillman’s motion to suppress his statements to police. AFFIRMED. -6-