Opinion ID: 1922618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements Made at the Southwest Harbor Police Station Prior to the Miranda Warnings

Text: [¶ 16] Lockhart contends that the Superior Court erred by failing to suppress the statements he made in response to the officers' four questions prior to being administered the Miranda warnings at the Southwest Harbor Police Station. [2] Lockhart arrived at the police station on his own initiative around 9:45 p.m. in a hysterical state, repeatedly saying that he thought he had killed his wife and that he had killed her. During the next two hours, before Detective Pickering arrived at the station and administered Miranda warnings, the officers asked Lockhart four questions. [¶ 17] Lockhart asserts that because an armed police officer was with him at all times and he was not free to leave during the two-hour period of time in question, the interrogation was custodial and he should have been administered Miranda warnings. The State responds that because Lockhart voluntarily went to the police station and knew that he was free to leave, he was not in custody. In support of the questioning not being custodial, the State points out that only four questions were asked over the two-hour period, three of which pertained to Andrea's whereabouts. A suspect who is not formally arrested is subjected to a custodial interrogation if the suspect's freedom of movement has been restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ¶ 12, 796 A.2d at 54 (internal quotations omitted). [¶ 18] We do not reach the question of whether Lockhart was subjected to a custodial interrogation during the initial period at the police station because the four questions Lockhart was asked fall within the administrative and public safety questions exceptions to Miranda. Whether a suspect is in custody or not, an officer is permitted to ask questions to identify the suspect, check [his or] her identification and resolve any health or safety concerns regarding the suspect or others. State v. Griffin, 2003 ME 13, ¶ 9, 814 A.2d 1003, 1005; State v. White, 619 A.2d 92, 94 (Me.1993) (stating that the trial court's decision that to the extent the police sought information on the location of the victim, [the suspect's] statements were within the public safety exception was not clearly erroneous). When a statement at issue is made in response to a question designed to learn something more than biographical data, some other justification for the question leading to [the suspect's statement] must be identified. Griffin, 2003 ME 13, ¶ 10, 814 A.2d at 1005. [¶ 19] Here, the first question Lockhart was asked by Officer Murphy was for the purpose of learning his identity. The second and third questions asked by Officer Murphy and the fourth question asked by Chief Tims were for the purpose of determining the whereabouts and welfare of Andrea. Because Andrea had previously been reported missing by her sister and Andrea's boyfriend, the police were justified in asking Lockhart questions specifically intended to assist them in locating her. We conclude that the court did not err by refusing to suppress Lockhart's responses to these four questions.