Opinion ID: 2330570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Custodial Interrogations

Text: The trial court appropriately focused on whether the interviews were custodial interrogations because law enforcement officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone questioned, only to those who are (1) in custody and (2) subject to interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, reh. denied 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1966); State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 935, 190 P.3d 937 (2008). A custodial interrogation is defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. A custodial interrogation is distinguished from an investigatory interrogation, which occurs as a routine part of the fact-finding process before the investigation has reached the accusatory stage. State v. Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, 185-86, 14 P.3d 409 (2000). Factors to be considered in determining if an interrogation is investigative or custodial include: (1) the time and place of the interrogation; (2) the duration of the interrogation; (3) the number of law enforcement officers present; (4) the conduct of the officers and the person subject to the interrogation; (5) the presence or absence of actual physical restraint or its functional equivalent, such as drawn firearms or a stationed guard; (6) whether the person is being questioned as a suspect or a witness; (7) whether the person being questioned was escorted by the officers to the interrogation location or arrived under his or her own power; and (8) the result of the interrogation, for instance, whether the person was allowed to leave, was detained further, or was arrested after the interrogation. State v. Morton, 286 Kan. 632, 640, 186 P.3d 785 (2008), cert. denied 555 U.S. 1126, 129 S.Ct. 903, 173 L.Ed.2d 158 (2009). No one factor outweighs another, nor do the factors bear equal weight. Every case must be analyzed on its own particular facts. [Citation omitted.] State v. Schultz, 289 Kan. 334, 341, 212 P.3d 150 (2009). An appellate court reviewing a trial court's determination of whether an interrogation is custodial, makes two discrete inquiries. Under the first inquiry, the court determines the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, employing a substantial competent evidence standard of review. In determining if there is substantial competent evidence supporting the existence of the circumstances found by the trial court, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve conflicting evidence. State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 545, 243 P.3d 683 (2010); State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80, 201 P.3d 673 (2009). The second inquiry employs a de novo standard of review to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and disengage from the encounter. Schultz, 289 Kan. at 340-41, 212 P.3d 150; State v. James, 276 Kan. 737, 751, 79 P.3d 169 (2003). As we apply these principles to the circumstances in this case, nearly all the factors indicate the third and fourth hospital interviews conducted on May 3, 2005, and May 5, 2005, were investigatory, not custodial. 1. Time and Place. The investigations occurred while law enforcement officers were still tracking down information and were prompted by new information disclosed through that investigation. With regard to the location of the questioning, the interviews occurred in Warrior's hospital room, a neutral location. The neutral atmosphere is further evidenced by the fact that Warrior's family members were present during the May 3 interview. Generally, other things being equal, a person questioned in familiar, or at least neutral, surroundings does not face the same pressures as one questioned in a police-dominated atmosphere and this factor weighs against a conclusion that an interview was custodial. See 2 LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 6.6(e), pp. 738-39 (3d ed. 2007) (discussing locations of interrogations in determining whether they are custodial). Additionally, a hospital room does not produce the aura of police authority that a police department interview room does. People v. Vasquez, 393 Ill.App.3d 185, 191, 332 Ill.Dec. 465, 913 N.E.2d 60 (2009). 2. Duration of Interrogation. The interviews were short in duration and dealt with Warrior's accounting of events and the identification of the shooter. Warrior had been told she could ask the officers to leave; in other words, she was in control of the length of the interviews. 3. The number of law enforcement officers present. There were two officers present in the room. We do not see this number as influencing our analysis. 4. The conduct of the law enforcement officers and the person subject to the interrogation. The officers did not use coercive threats or employ a hostile or accusatory tone. Instead, they used a conversational tone, asked for the truth, and offered protection for Warrior, if needed. Warrior was not arrested at the end of either of these interviews. As for Warrior's conduct during the interviews, although she had experienced a traumatic event and was prescribed pain medication, there was no evidence she suffered from any mental, intellectual, or emotional problems that would have affected her perception of whether she was free to terminate the questioning. 5. The presence or absence of actual physical restraint or its functional equivalent, such as drawn firearms or a stationed guard. Warrior contends she was in custody because she was not at the hospital voluntarily and was paralyzed, effectively being medically restrained. While there is no dispute that Warrior's injuries prevented her from leaving her hospital room, physical incapacity resulting from forces outside the control of law enforcement does not amount to custody. Restraint, as contemplated by Miranda, is the interference with a person's freedom which is imposed by law enforcement officers. Consequently, this court has held that a law enforcement interview of an accident victim at a hospital is not a custodial interrogation unless the victim's confinement is instigated by law enforcement or controlled for custodial purposes. State v. Louis, 240 Kan. 175, 181, 727 P.2d 483 (1986); State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596, Syl. ¶ 3, 507 P.2d 233 (1973), disapproved in part on other grounds by State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223, 21 P.3d 528 (2001); see State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 847, 964 P.2d 681 (1998) (defendant was not in custody where he was alone for significant periods of time and was not arrested at hospital; purpose of officers' presence at hospital was to determine when defendant would be released so they could later question him); see generally, What Constitutes Custodial Interrogation at Hospital by Police Officer Within Rule of Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Suspect Be Informed of His or Her Federal Constitutional Rights Before Custodial Interrogation-Suspect Hospital Patient, Annot. 30 A.L.R.6th 103, 120. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the officers exercised any control over Warrior's hospitalization before her interviews. After the fourth interview, officers had Warrior moved to another hospital room. Warrior seemed to understand this was for her safety because she contacted Detective Lawson and told him Rodgers had called her at the new location. More significantly, the room change occurred after the final interview. Also, the officers allowed Warrior to leave the hospital once she was discharged. Warrior argues another factor must be considered. Specifically, she contends the repeated interviews effectively put Warrior under police custody. According to Warrior, the repeated intrusions gave the impression that although [Warrior] could terminate an interrogation, the police would return and the interrogation would resume. However, as the State notes, each hospital interview was prompted by new information. Between the first and second interviews, officers obtained Warrior's telephone records. Then, during the third interview Warrior revealed Rodgers was the shooter andafter calling Detective Lawson back into the room as he was leavingthat she had rented the SUV for Rodgers. Following that revelation, the officers investigated the car rental and called on Warrior for some follow-up information. In light of the fact the ongoing investigation raised new issues to be discussed with Warrior, we do not find the serial nature of the interviews to necessarily mean the interviews were custodial. Further, it is noteworthy that at the beginning of the fourth hospital interview, the officers asked Warrior how she was feeling, made sure she was up to talking to them, and told her this would be a short visit. The officers had demonstrated that all Warrior had to do was ask to terminate the interview. Warrior asked to terminate the second interview, and the officers did so. This demonstrates that Warrior was aware she could terminate the interviews at any time. At the beginning of the fourth interview, Warrior agreed to speak with the officers and indicated they had been very helpful in this situation. She indicated she wanted to explain she had no role in the shooting. She then volunteered information. At no point were the officers openly accusatory or threatening, and, as we have repeatedly noted, they did not arrest Warrior after these hospital interviews. Compare Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 874-76 (Colo.2010) (hospitalized defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, even though he was informed that he was not under arrest and his mobility was limited for medical reasons; officer was posted outside hospital room; officers ignored defendant's repeated statements that he did not wish to speak with them; officers sat between defendant and the closed door; defendant was emotionally distraught; officers' questions provided details of the incident and were designed to elicit agreement from defendant); and Louis, 240 Kan. at 183-84, 727 P.2d 483 (hospitalized defendant was in custody where defendant was notified that his blood was being drawn for law enforcement purposes while three officers were present, and defendant was arrested immediately upon release from hospital), with United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 513 U.S. 906, 115 S.Ct. 271, 130 L.Ed.2d 189 (1994) (defendant was not in custody where federal agent testified the FBI did not intend to take defendant into custody at time of interview, and defendant was free to check himself out of hospital), and United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1985) (defendant, who had been making bombs in his apartment, had been injured in explosion, and had gone to hospital for treatment, was not in custody when officers went to hospital and questioned him, and thus, Miranda warnings were not required), and James, 276 Kan. at 751-52, 79 P.3d 169 (defendant was not in custody when officers questioned him in a hospital waiting room and at the police station regarding the deaths of two dependent adults in his care). We conclude Warrior was neither actually restrained by law enforcement nor under the functional equivalent of custody. 6. Whether the person is being questioned as a suspect or a witness. Warrior also contends she was being questioned as a suspect. Detective Lawson testified that he did not begin to think of Warrior as a suspect until the time of Rodgers' 2005 preliminary hearingwell after Warrior's May 3, 2005, and May 5, 2005, interviewswhen Warrior recanted her identification of Rodgers as the shooter. The trial judge apparently did not find this testimony entirely credible, as shown by the judge's finding that Warrior certainly remained possibly only a victim all the way through this investigation, I guess up through her third statement.  (Emphasis added.) Also, Warrior points out that in the time period between the second and third hospital interviews, officers talked to Warrior's sister about information indicating that Rodgers had called the sister's telephone sometime after the shooting. The officers told Warrior's sister she needed to be truthful in order to avoid possible obstruction charges. Warrior does not contend she was made aware of the officers' communications with her sister before her interviews, however. Consequently, we do not consider this as a factor in our analysis. Nevertheless, in the time period between Warrior's second and third hospital interviews, the officers did express to Warrior their doubts about her truthfulness regarding the possible affair with Rodgers. They told Warrior that if she was afraid to relay information about Rodgers, they could provide protection from him. In encouraging Warrior to be truthful, the officers further stated that if it was later discovered Rodgers was involved in the shooting, it would be hard to justify she wasn't involved. It was after this interaction with officers that Warrior admitted, during the third interview, that she was having an affair with Rodgers and identified him as the shooter. Warrior indicated she had not previously disclosed this information to officers because she was fearful of Rodgers. But she also called Lawson back into her room to report her rental of the SUV. Because the officers focused on her potential culpability during this third interview, Warrior argues she was an accused. She cites State v. Hewes, 558 A.2d 696 (Me.1989), to support her contention that she was in custody at the time of the May 3, 2005, and May 5, 2005, hospital interviews. Besides the fact that Hewes is not binding precedent, it is not helpful to our analysis. In Hewes, a case involving a charge of manslaughter in the shooting death of a boarding house resident, the Maine Supreme Court concluded that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant, who was interrogated at the police station, was in custody, and the defendant's statements made to officers during two interviews were suppressible in the absence of Miranda warnings. Hewes was driven twice to the police station in a police cruiser, was questioned by officers for 50 minutes and 45 minutes respectively, and was asked for detailed and specific information about the victim's death. The Hewes court mentioned the fact that the interrogating officer told the defendant he could terminate the second interview and leave at any time does not compel a finding that Hewes was not in custody. Hewes, 558 A.2d at 699 n. 6. Also, the court focused on the specific and lengthy questioning. These factors are also present in this case, Warrior argues. However, the facts and circumstances in Hewes are too dissimilar to be of any assistance here. While Hewes was told he could terminate the interview, there was no suggestion he was free to leave, a possibility that would seem unlikely to a reasonable person who had been transported to the police station in a police car. In contrast, the officers did not exercise control over Warrior's ability to leave the hospital and never gave her any indication she was in their custody. Further, on the one occasion when she asked to terminate the interview, the officers did so. Nevertheless, this factor gives at least some support to Warrior's position that she was in custody. 7. Whether the person being questioned was escorted by officers to the interrogation location or arrived under his or her own power. Warrior was taken to the hospital for treatment, not by order of law enforcement. 8. The result of the interrogation, for instance, whether the person was allowed to leave, was detained further, or was arrested after the interrogation. As the State points out, this was an ongoing investigation, where Warrior was seriously injured, and the officers wanted to learn the truth about Warrior's relationship with Rodgers and what motive Rodgers might have had to kill Jeremy. The officers did not arrest Warrior after any of these hospital interviews. Conclusion. At most, the only factor favoring Warrior's argument would be that the officers considered Warrior to be a possible suspect by the time they conducted the May 3, 2005, and May 5, 2005, the third and fourth interviews. But the fact a suspect is the focus of an investigation, standing alone, does not trigger the need for Miranda warnings. State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 312, 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121, 129, 551 P.2d 828 (1976); see Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984) (mere fact that investigation has focused on suspect does not trigger need for Miranda warnings in noncustodial settings); Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347-48, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976) (same); 2 LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 6.6(a) (3d ed. 2007) (discussing differences between custody and focus). The totality of the circumstances in this case shows that the investigation had not reached the custodial or accusatory stage. See Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, Syl. ¶ 7, 14 P.3d 409; State v. Gooden, 22 Kan.App.2d 271, 276, 915 P.2d 169, rev. denied 260 Kan. 998 (1996). Consequently, we conclude that substantial competent evidence supports the trial court's finding that Warrior was not in custody at the time of the May 3, 2005, and May 5, 2005, hospital interviews. Further, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interviews and disengage from these encounters.