Opinion ID: 2109923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to give Miranda rights.

Text: The record also supports Jenner's claim that the agents' failure to advise her of her constitutional rights required suppression of the statements. The State concedes that the agents failed to read Jenner her Miranda rights, and I reject the State's claim that no Miranda warnings were necessary because Jenner was not in custody during the questioning. In Miranda the Supreme Court held that a suspect must be advised of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney prior to any custodial interrogation. See also Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). The Miranda Court stated that failure to give Miranda warnings under such circumstances creates a presumption of improper compulsion. [O]ur accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth. (citations omitted). Id., 384 U.S. at 460, 86 S.Ct. at 1620, 16 L.Ed.2d at 715. The question of custody depends upon whether the person being questioned is in custody or deprived of his or her freedom to leave. State v. Bruske, 288 N.W.2d 319, 322 (S.D.1980). Though Jenner was not formally in custody on April 7, she was deprived of her freedom of action in a significant way. In State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984), we stated: This court has set forth a number of factors to be examined in determining whether an interrogation is custodial or noncustodial: probable cause to arrest, subjective intent of the defendant, focus of the investigation, nature of the interrogator, nature of the suspect, time and place of the interrogation, nature of the interrogation, and purpose of the investigation. Although the police may not have had probable cause to arrest Jenner at the start of the interrogation, the other factors listed in McQuillen all tend to show that she was in custody. The State argues that Jenner complied with all the officers' questions and never tried to stop the interview. However, Jenner testified that she believed she was not free to leave. She also voiced an objection to the interrogation by asking Agent Giegling Why are you putting me through this[.] The agent apologized and then continued with his interrogation. It is apparent that the investigation focused on Jenner as the prime suspect. In addition, this was not a short interrogation as that in McQuillen [1] and it was often hostile and accusatory toward Jenner. In McQuillen the court noted that the conversation between the police officer and the suspect was calm and neither accusatory nor hostile. Further, this was Jenner's first experience with law enforcement. Finally, the sole purpose of the interrogation was to obtain a confession from Jenner, not to gather further general information for the investigation of Abby's murder. Under these circumstances, Jenner was in custody and Miranda warnings should have been given to her prior to the interrogation. The majority overemphasizes its claim that Jenner was not actually physically restrained. Physical restraint is only one of many factors to be considered and is not dispositive in this case. When all the McQuillen factors are considered, it is evident that Jenner was subjected to a custodial interrogation even though she may have been allowed to get up and walk out. [2]