Opinion ID: 1694843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress drake's statement to the law officers.

Text: ¶ 9. Drake contends that his incriminating statements to law enforcement officers should have been suppressed for lack of timely advice required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 477-78, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629-30, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-26 (1966). The State argues that Drake did not make any inculpatory or incriminating statements during custodial interrogation until after he had been given his Miranda warnings at the location of Harwell's car. According to the State, every response until that point had been gratuitous, voluntary, and exculpatory regarding the telephone call and Drake's involvement as a victim as opposed to a perpetrator. ¶ 10. When the trial court overrules a motion to suppress a defendant's confession, this Court will reverse that ruling only if it is manifest error or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. O'Halloran v. State, 731 So.2d 565, 570 (Miss.1999). The voluntariness of a waiver, or of a confession, is a factual inquiry that must be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances. Id. ¶ 11. In overruling Drake's motion to suppress, the trial judge stated the following: I haven't heard anything to make me believe or feel like under the case law that the statement should be suppressed. I'm going to deny the motion. I think it's clearly an investigation, a preliminary investigation. The officers had the right to ask questions. He wasn't under arrest. He was taken-he voluntarily got in the van.    I don't see anything that indicates that the police officers are lying. All [Drake] did was give directions after that, but even at that point, I think they're entitled to see if he could actually take them to the car. They might have just been seeing if he could take them to the car. They had no confirmation that he could take them to the car until they got to the car. They confirmed it was the victim's car, and then at that point, they gave him the Miranda [warnings]. ¶ 12. The threshold question in a Miranda rights analysis is whether the defendant was in custody and being interrogated when the statement in question was made. Neither general on the scene questioning, nor voluntary statements made by a defendant are enough to trigger the requirements of Miranda. Miller v. State, 740 So.2d 858, 867 (Miss.1999) (citations omitted). In Hunt v. State, 687 So.2d 1154, 1160 (Miss.1996), this Court stated: The test for whether a person is in custody is whether a reasonable person would feel that she was in custody. That is, whether a reasonable person would feel that she was going to jail-and not just being temporarily detained.... Whether a reasonable person would feel that she was in custody depends on the totality of the circumstances. Factors to consider include: (a) the place of interrogation; (b) the time of interrogation; (c) the people present; (d) the amount of force or physical restraint used by the officers; (e) the length and form of the questions; (f) whether the defendant comes to the authorities voluntarily; and (g) what the defendant is told about the situation. (citations omitted). ¶ 13. The record reflects under the totality of the circumstances that Drake's conversations with the officers occurred prior to his being in custody. The places of interrogation were Drake's home and the police van, where Drake was an unrestrained, voluntary passenger. Both are non-custodial environments. The time of interrogation was mid-morning. ¶ 14. The officers arrived at Drake's residence in Memphis, Mississippi, at 10:30 a.m. Drake's Miranda rights were read to him approximately an hour later. During this one-hour period, Drake agreed to show the officers where the robbery took place and where the victim's car was located. Only three to five minutes elapsed between the time Drake voluntarily entered the police van and the victim's car was found. The persons present during the interrogation were Drake's mother, father, and sister and Officers Doss and Thompson. ¶ 15. Later, in the van, only the officers were present with Drake. Neither officer was in uniform. No force or physical restraint was used during this period. Drake occupied the front passenger seat of the police van, a Ford Aerostar. The doors were unlocked. The questions were short and propounded for the purpose of clarifying Drake's role as a robbery victim. Drake's assistance to the officers was voluntary according to the trial court's findings. Further, Drake was told nothing that would make him believe he was in police custody during this investigatory interrogation. Thompson told Drake that a call to Harwell's pager had originated at the Drake residence. ¶ 16. After Drake told the officers that he and Harwell were victims of the robbery, Thompson asked Drake if he could take the officers to the scene. En route, Officer Doss asked Drake why he had not reported the robbery to law enforcement. Drake gave another story which did not exactly coincide with his first version. Thompson confronted Drake with the conflicts and asked if he knew where the car was located and if he could take them to the location. Drake nodded affirmatively to both questions. After confirming the maroon Lexus was registered to Harwell, the officers gave Drake his Miranda warnings. ¶ 17. Drake argues that he was a suspect from the beginning and should not have been interrogated without Miranda warnings. Officer Doss, however, testified that he was not prepared to base an arrest merely upon Drake's statements concerning the telephone call to Harwell's pager and some conflicting statements concerning Drake's role as a victim in the robbery. The officers were attempting to resolve an ambiguous situation. The mere possibility of incrimination does not mean that a custodial interrogation occurred in violation of Miranda. Greenlee v. State, 725 So.2d 816, 825 (Miss.1998). ¶ 18. The record does not reflect that the officers' questions were asked for the purpose of eliciting an incriminating statement from Drake. Miranda warnings were not a prerequisite to the admissibility of Drake's statements. We find no merit to this assignment of error.