Opinion ID: 688675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: asserted miranda violations.

Text: 9 The first issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Ms. Peet's motion to suppress statements made by her during an interview at the FBI offices. Ms. Peet asserts that the statements were made in the absence of Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The government responds that Miranda warnings were unnecessary because Ms. Peet was not in custody. 10 A person is in custody when she is placed under formal arrest or has her freedom of movement restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest. United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302, 1306 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983 (1988). The court must examine how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood her situation. Id. A district court's determination that a suspect was not in custody for purposes of Miranda is reviewed for clear error. Cordoba v. Hanrahan, 910 F.2d 691, 693 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1014 (1990). 11 Ms. Peet went voluntarily to the Federal Building in Topeka, Kansas, at the request of a government agent. She was advised that she was the subject of an investigation but that she was not under arrest and would not be arrested that day. She also was told that she was free to leave at any time. Following the interview, Ms. Peet departed freely. She now contends that an outside door was locked, but this testimony was contradicted by a government agent. Thus the district court's determinations that she was not in custody, and that her Miranda rights were not violated, were not clearly erroneous. 12 Even if a suspect's Miranda rights are not violated, her statements may be inadmissible if made involuntarily. Chalan, 812 F.2d at 1307. Voluntariness depends upon an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's age, education and intelligence, the length of her detention, and whether physical abuse was employed. Id. The district court's underlying factual determinations are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, but the question of voluntariness is reviewed de novo. Id. at 1307-08. 13 Ms. Peet held a responsible position for a national shoe company and had been a merit scholar in high school. She attended the interview willingly, and was questioned for only a few hours. It is not asserted that she was physically abused. There simply is no evidence that her statements were involuntary. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Ms. Peet's motion to suppress. 14