Opinion ID: 170621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Lack of Police Domination

Text: Although some factors indicate possible police domination of the encounter, the totality of the circumstances suggests the opposite. Jones did encounter multiple agents, but she was not confronted by them simultaneously or aggressively, as was the suspect in DiGiacomo, for example. 579 F.2d at 1214. Only Agent Bridge spoke to her as she came out of the convenience store. In fact, Bridge was the only one to speak with her throughout the encounter. And because the agents were in plain clothes, their guns concealed, we cannot necessarily conclude she immediately apprehended the presence of four agents. Two agents may have been still sitting in their unmarked car when Bridge first spoke to Jones. No guns were ever drawn (or even displayed). Except for a quick pat-down to ensure Jones would not bring a weapon into Bridge's car, the agents did not touch Jones. Indeed, Jones felt unthreatened enough to refuse consent to search her purse when asked by Bridge. Throughout the interview, Bridge's tone remained calm and conversational. Chee, 514 F.3d at 1114. Overall, the facts of this case do not reveal a threatening presence of several officers. Nor is the fact that most of the conversation took place inside Bridge's unmarked car dispositive of the custody issue. Although the vehicle belonged to the agents, location alone does not compel the conclusion that a defendant is in custody, so long as his freedom was not curtailed to a degree similar to arrest. United States v. Lamy, 521 F.3d 1257, 1263 (10th Cir.2008). Police need not administer Miranda warnings simply because the questioning is conducted in a certain place, i.e., a patrol car. [2] Id. (quoting United States v. Boucher, 909 F.2d 1170, 1174 (8th Cir.1990)). Similar to the suspect in Lamy, Jones was not ordered into Agent Bridge's car. Rather, she was politely asked to speak with the agents inside one of their vehicles, and she agreed. This voluntary decision to accompany police argues against police domination. Id. (citing United States v. Plumman, 409 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir.2005), and United States v. Scheets, 188 F.3d 829, 842 (7th Cir.1999)). And it was perfectly sensible for Bridge to be cognizant of Jones's privacy and ask to speak inside his car, thus preventing passersby from learning of Jones's methamphetamine use. Cf. United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 379 (4th Cir.1984) (The reason for detaining [the suspect] in the patrol carspecifically, the inclement weatherderogates from whatever coercive elements are otherwise normally attendant thereto.). Thus, the circumstances surrounding Bridge's polite request to speak with Jones inside his vehicle do not support a finding of custody. What is more, Bridge's car lacked virtually any official indicia that might normally intimidate a person placed into a fully equipped police vehiclelights, radio, computer, cage, radar, etc. Besides the police radio, which wasn't even blaring (and was inconspicuously located below the dashboard, between the front seats), R., Vol. II at 15, nothing inside the car revealed it to be a police unit. Bridge's car alone, therefore, would not intimidate a reasonable person sitting inside. Jones argues the agents situated themselves in a way calculated to intimidate. While she sat next to Bridge in the backseat of his car, two agents sat in the front, and one remained outside next to Jones's purse and food. Jones argues she was effectively surrounded by the agents. But a more plausible assessment of the situation is that a reasonable person would have understood the two agents sitting in the front seats were there merely to listen to the interview, not to intimidate or block off possible exit points (lest we think a suspect is likely to leap from the back of the car into the front seat area and escape through the front doors). Neither agent ever turned around to face Jones or spoke to her. At most, while generally facing forward, these two agents may have turned their upper bodies slightly towards the back of the car. And the agent who remained outside was apparently there to ensure no one walked off with Jones's purse and food. This was, after all, a public area with people going back and forth. On these facts, a reasonable person would not necessarily feel restrained by the agents' placement to a degree associated with formal arrest. Jones further argues the agents were clearly in charge of the situation because they followed her from the earlier court appearance, waited for her to drop off her passenger, surrounded her at the gas station when Bridge first addressed her, and would not leave her alone when she said she was on her way to work. The record, construed in the light most favorable to the government, does not support these arguments. First, Jones did not know the agents had followed her from the courthouse all the way to the gas station. We thus cannot attach any significance to this fact. Second, while Agent Bridge testified it was possible that one agent stood directly behind Jones when Bridge first addressed her, he was not sure of that. We construe this ambiguity against Jones. Finally, Bridge could not recall whether Jones had said she needed to get to work. We likewise construe this ambiguity against Jones. Several additional factors suggest Jones at all times remained in control of the situation, and was thus not in custody. She at first refused to let the agents look in her purse. Indeed, the agents were able to search her purse and car only after her later consent. When Jones asked that the agents roll down the window on her side of the car and give her the food, the agents promptly complied. Lastly, at the end of the interview, she freely left in her own car, a fact we found telling in Chee, 514 F.3d at 1114, where the suspect freely left after police-station interrogation. See also 2 Criminal Procedure, supra, § 6.6(c) (noting the Supreme Court and the lower courts have relied upon the fact that the suspect was allowed to leave following the interrogation as strong evidence that the interrogation was not custodial (internal footnotes omitted)). All in all, we cannot say the agents dominated the encounter.