Opinion ID: 2585179
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preinterrogation events

Text: The state argues that Smith initiated contact with the police, attempted to mislead them with a fabricated alibi, and prior to the interview remained eager to discuss the matter. Smith responds that he did not contact the police on the day of the questioning and did not intend to mislead the police with an alibi. The court of appeals has ruled that a suspect's initiation of contact with police weighed against the conclusion of custody. [21] Smith appears to argue that because his initial telephone call to the police is unlike the facts of existing case law where a suspect's participation indicated non-custodial interrogation, his initial telephone call is insignificant to the determination of Miranda custody. The facts here are different from the existing precedent. However, while the interview may have been less custodial if the police had scheduled it in advance, the fact remains that Smith contacted the police first. While he may not have initiated contact on the day he was questioned, Smith gives no convincing reason why the police's next-day response should erase the import of his initial action. In addition, during the call, Smith identified himself to police, and the police asked Smith for his address and telephone number. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would not have been surprised when the police later visited him to follow up. As a factual matter, Smith denies the state's allegation that he attempted to mislead police. He notes that the officer who took Smith's call did not state in his own words that Smith had offered an alibi. The only testimony supporting the allegation that Smith attempted to mislead the police with an alibi came on cross-examination by the defendant's attorney, where the trooper answered yes to a compound question asking whether Smith had said he didn't do it, wanted to clear it up, and could tell [police] where he was all day. What Smith actually said to the police in his initial telephone call is the sort of disputed fact, in the absence of an express finding, that an appellate court should resolve in favor of the prevailing party. [22] The trial court made no express finding of the content of Smith's call to police. For the purposes of this review, then, Smith did offer his alibi, which may be construed as an attempt to mislead police. Courts generally do not suppress un-Mirandized, self-incriminating statements made in attempts to mislead police. [23] The reasoning is that the suspect had considered the risk of self-incrimination and deemed it to be less important than the possibility of clearing himself. [24] In Hunter v. State , the defendant submitted to a lie detector test, hoping to beat the test and end suspicion. [25] We noted that the attempt to mislead police supported the conclusion that his interrogation was non-custodial. [26] Smith contends that Hunter should be distinguished on its facts. While the facts of Hunter differ, the general rule and its supporting rationale apply equally. Although not as egregiously as Hunter, Smith did attempt to mislead police. Finally, it is undisputed that just prior to the interview, Smith was friendly and was more than willing to talk to Barnes. When Barnes asked to speak to Smith and suggested that it was easier to talk in the patrol car, Smith agreed. Smith walked to the patrol car and entered it voluntarily. Smith's initial call to police, his attempt to mislead police, and his voluntary agreement to questioning in the police car weigh against a conclusion of custody.