Opinion ID: 1038437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether burch was in custody

Text: “[T]he issue whether a suspect is ‘in custody,’ and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings, presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 102, 116 S. Ct. 457, 460 (1995). Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. . . . The first inquiry . . . is distinctly factual. State-court findings on these scene- and action-setting questions attract a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).[4] The second inquiry, however, calls for application of the controlling legal standard to the historical facts. This ultimate determination . . . presents a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent review. Id. at 112–13, 116 S. Ct. at 465 (footnote omitted). Here, the following objective facts support the state court’s conclusion that Burch was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he made his confession. First, Burch went to the Sheriff’s office on his own initiative, and was immediately told he was not under arrest. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 714 (1977) (defendant’s voluntary arrival at the police station, coupled 4 The presumption of correctness accorded state court fact findings is now located in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 8 Case: 12-14828 Date Filed: 08/23/2013 Page: 9 of 13 with police officer’s admonishment that he was not under arrest, indicated that he was not in custody); Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 2149 (2004) (same). Second, Burch was not threatened, handcuffed, or physically restrained. See Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S. Ct. at 714 (defendant was not in custody because there was no indication that his freedom to depart had been restricted in any way). Third, Burch was allowed to take cigarette breaks during his interview, and the detectives offered to let him speak to his family. See Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 664, 124 S. Ct. at 2150 (considering that the detective twice asked the defendant whether he wanted to take a break in determining that he was not in custody). Fourth, Burch’s parents and girlfriend “remained in the lobby during the interview, suggesting that the interview would be brief.” See id. at 664, 124 S. Ct. at 2149. However, other objective factors support Burch’s contention that he was in custody for Miranda purposes. First, Burch was interviewed in a secured room, away from his parents and girlfriend. See id. at 656, 124 S. Ct. at 2145 (considering the fact that the defendant’s parents were not permitted to accompany the defendant to the interview room as relevant to the custody determination). Second, one of the doors to this room was locked, and Burch’s cigarettes and lighter were confiscated, suggesting that his freedom of action may have been limited. Third, the interview lasted for longer than two hours. See Yarborough, 9 Case: 12-14828 Date Filed: 08/23/2013 Page: 10 of 13 541 U.S. at 665, 124 S. Ct. at 2150 (considering two-hour interview as a relevant factor in determining custody status). Fourth, the detectives never told Burch that he was free to leave, and were constantly at his side throughout his time at the Sheriff’s Office, including when he took smoking breaks. See id. (considering the fact that the defendant was not told that he was free to leave when determining custody status). Finally, Burch was immediately arrested upon the conclusion of his interview. Cf. id. at 664, 124 S. Ct. at 2150 (considering that the defendant went home after the interview in determining that he was not in custody); Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S. Ct. at 714 (same). Clearly there are differing indications as to whether Burch was in custody at the time he gave his statement. However, it is not our task under AEDPA to review Burch’s claim anew. See Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 665, 124 S. Ct. at 2150 (“A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state-court decision applied the law incorrectly.” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Instead, “[r]elief is available under § 2254(d)(1) only if the state court’s decision is objectively unreasonable.” Id. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Yarborough is directly relevant to our disposition of Burch’s claim: “These differing indications lead us to hold that the state court’s application of our custody standard was reasonable. . . . The custody test is general, and the state court’s application of our law fits within 10 Case: 12-14828 Date Filed: 08/23/2013 Page: 11 of 13 the matrix of our prior decisions.” Id. Our analysis leads us to conclude that we may not grant habeas relief on the basis that Burch was in custody when he gave his statement to the Sheriff’s detectives.5 See id.