Opinion ID: 791823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interrogation by agent Wipperfurth on December 9

Text: 9 When taken into custody for questioning, an individual must be advised of the rights to be free from compulsory self-incrimination, and to the assistance of counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda warnings are required only where a person is deemed to be in custody. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). 10 The ultimate inquiry to determine custody for Miranda purposes is whether there was a formal arrest, or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983). This court first considers the totality of the circumstances of the historical facts that confronted Black Bear at the time of questioning. See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995); United States v. Czichray, 378 F.3d 822, 826-28 (8th Cir.2004). Second, the only relevant inquiry is whether reasonable persons in Black Bear's position would consider their freedom of movement restricted to the degree associated with a formal arrest. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. 457. This determination is based on the objective circumstances, not on subjective views of the participants. See United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715, 720 (8th Cir.2004) (en banc). 11 The district court found that Black Bear was ordered to attend the December 9 interview by Agent Wipperfurth acting through [social worker] Lanz. The court concluded that, from the perspective of a reasonable person, the restrictions on Black Bear were like those of a formal arrest. The court identified as key historical facts: 12 1. Lanz had considerable authority and power over Black Bear, having obtained an ex parte order removing his son to foster parents, and prosecuting the litigation (possibly) to terminate Black Bear's parental rights; 2. He directed Black Bear to meet with Wipperfurth, pursuant to Wipperfurth's advance directions; 13 3. Lanz ordered Black Bear to accompany him to be interviewed by Wipperfurth; 14 4. He did not give Black Bear the option of not coming; and 15 5. Black Bear was told the interview was voluntary only after he was in a private room of the police station. 16 These findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. 1 However, the district court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, as is the ultimate determination of custody. The facts listed emphasize the events preceding the interview. These facts do not resolve whether Black Bear was in custody during the interview of December 9. 17 The LeBrun case is instructive. Before concluding that LeBrun was not in custody, this court considered the events preceding the interview. LeBrun, 363 F.3d at 718. There, a Highway Patrol officer and a Naval investigator met LeBrun at his place of employment and asked him to accompany them to a Patrol office. LeBrun was not informed of the subject of the investigation, nor given any warnings at that time. LeBrun rode in a police car to the Patrol office, but was not restrained in any manner. Upon arriving at the Patrol office, but before going inside, the investigator told LeBrun that he was not under arrest, was free to terminate the impending interview at any time, and was free to leave at any time. Id. 18 In this case, Wipperfurth made almost identical statements to Black Bear. True, in the events here, Black Bear may have faced more compulsion than LeBrun. However, the coercive aspects of a police interview are largely irrelevant to the custody determination except where a reasonable person would perceive the coercion as restricting his or her freedom to depart. Id. at 721. 19 The key is the reasonable person's view during the interview or during the interrogation. United States v. Wallace, 323 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir.2002). Measured by the factors in Axsom, Black Bear was not in custody during the interview because: 20 1. He was informed at the time of his interview that he was not under arrest, would not be arrested at the end of the interview, did not have to speak with Wipperfurth, and could end the interview at any time; 21 2. While Black Bear did not have unrestrained freedom of movement during the interview because it occurred in a closed-door room in the police department, he nonetheless accompanied Wipperfurth to the room and was not handcuffed or restrained at any time during the interview; 22 3. Black Bear voluntarily acquiesced to Wipperfurth's requests to respond to questions; 23 4. No strong-arm tactics or deceptive strategies were employed during his interview; 5. While the atmosphere was police-dominated to some extent, it was not overly so to the point that Black Bear's freedom of movement was restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest; and 24 6. He was not placed under arrest at the termination of the interview. 25 See Axsom, 289 F.3d at 500 (quoting United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir.1990)). 26 Because Black Bear was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda, the district court's order suppressing his statements on December 9 is reversed. 27