Opinion ID: 2453894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kalmakoff Was In Custody For Miranda Purposes Throughout His First Interview With The Troopers.

Text: For the Miranda safeguards to apply, a person must be subject to custodial police interrogation. The Miranda Court described custodial interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. [46] Accepting the findings of historical fact made by the trial court, we apply de novo review to the Miranda custody determination. [47] Our test for determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes is set out in two cases: Hunter v. State [48] and State v. Smith. [49] In Hunter, we adopted an objective reasonable person test, [50] holding that custody occurs if the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way or is led to believe, as a reasonable person, that he is so deprived. [51] We further described this test as requiring some actual indication of custody such that a reasonable person [in the suspect's position] would feel he was not free to leave and break off police questioning. [52] In Smith, we reaffirmed the Hunter test [53] but clarified that the ultimate inquiry is whether there was a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. [54] Both Hunter and Smith describe three categories of facts that are relevant to the custody determination: (1) facts pertaining to events before the interrogation, particularly whether the defendant came to the place of questioning completely on his own, in response to a police request, or [was] escorted by police officers; (2) facts intrinsic to the interrogation, such as when and where it occurred, how long it lasted, how many officers were present, what the officers and defendant said and did, whether there were physical restraints, drawn weapons, or guards stationed at the door, and whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or witness; and (3) post-interrogation events, particularly whether the defendant left freely, was detained, or was arrested. [55] We noted in Smith, however, that [t]he post-interview events factor is of limited weight. [56] As the court of appeals recognized, the Miranda custody determination in this case is complicated by Kalmakoff's age and the fact that he was removed from school for the police interview. [57] The court of appeals conducted a survey of relevant case law regarding whether, and how, an adolescent's status as a secondary school student affects the assessment of whether a police interview is `custodial' for purposes of Miranda when the adolescent is summoned from class to be interviewed. [58] The court of appeals concluded that other courts are virtually unanimous in recognizing that a directive or `request' for a secondary school student to leave class for the purpose of being questioned by a police officer can result in a custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes. [59] The court of appeals further explained that factors generally considered by other courts include: (1) the age and sophistication of the student; (2) whether the student was told that [the student was] free to leave or to break off the questioning if [the student] wished; and (3) whether the student was given the opportunity to consult or obtain the presence of a parent or guardian. [60] We agree with the court of appeals that these factors are relevant to the Miranda custody determination in this case and fit within the framework already established by Hunter and Smith. The factors listed in Hunter and Smith are not exhaustive, and when a student is summoned from class to speak with a police officer, additional relevant factors to consider include whether the student was given the opportunity to consult with or obtain the presence of a parent or guardian; the student's age and sophistication; and whether the student was told that he was free to leave or break off questioning. [61] Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a child's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis. [62] The court of appeals decided that the circumstances leading to Kalmakoff's first interview had not been sufficiently litigated or clarified to determine whether Kalmakoff was in custody throughout that interview. [63] We therefore remanded to the trial court for additional factual findings. [64] After reviewing the trial court's findings on remand and the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties, we now conclude that Kalmakoff was in custody throughout his first interview with the Alaska State Troopers. Although Kalmakoff was not formally arrested, his freedom of movement was restrained in such a way that a reasonable person in Kalmakoff's position would not have felt free to leave the interview or break off questioning. The findings on remand regarding the events leading up to the first interrogation compel this conclusion. Hunter and Smith instruct that whether the suspect came to the place of questioning completely on his own, in response to a police request, or [was] escorted by police officers is an especially important factor to consider. [65] Here, Kalmakoff was removed from school and transported to the interview by the VPSO in her official vehicle. The troopers had instructed the VPSO to bring Kalmakoff, along with two other students, to the city offices. Even if the use of the VPSO truck can be explained by convenience, Kalmakoff was still escorted to the interview by a law enforcement officer. Furthermore, the VPSO told Kalmakoff that the troopers needed to get some information from him, and neither the VPSO nor the principal teacher told Kalmakoff that he did not have to attend the interview or answer the troopers' questions. On remand, the superior court found that Kalmakoff likely believed that he had to go with the VPSO to the interview. Finally, the superior court found that neither the troopers nor school authorities informed Kalmakoff's grandparents about the interview and Kalmakoff was not given the opportunity to consult with or obtain the presence of a parent or guardian before the interview began. Even when Kalmakoff's grandmother came to the city offices, the troopers did not inform her that they were questioning Kalmakoff or invite her to join them in the interview. The State tries to downplay the significance of these facts by arguing that because students are accustomed to having their actions directed by school authorities, being directed to attend a police interview is no more restrictive or intrusive than what the student may experience on other days for other reasons and is not tantamount to a formal arrest. The State notes that Kalmakoff was originally called out of class by the school's principal teacher and claims that removing Kalmakoff from school for the interview was therefore not an infringement on [his] freedom of movement because [p]rincipals and teachers routinely assert authority over students. The State compares being summoned for a police interview to being told to go to the counselor's office to discuss class choices or the auditorium to take a standardized test. This argument misunderstands the significance of the school environment in a custody evaluation. It is precisely because students are accustomed to having their actions directed by school authorities that a student who is told by a principal or teacher that he must speak with a law enforcement officer might reasonably believe that he is not free to leave the interview or break off questioning. [66] Furthermore, a police interview is not something that a reasonable student would anticipate as part of a normal school day and is simply not comparable to routine activities such as taking a standardized test or speaking with a counselor about class choices. Thus, the fact that a student was directed by school authorities to leave class to speak with law enforcement officers is a relevant fact pertaining to events before the interrogation [67] that may, depending on the individual circumstances, support a finding of Miranda custody. But even if we were to accept the State's premise, it would not change the outcome of this particular case. The State cites several cases where students who were summoned from class to meet with police officers were found not to be in Miranda custody. But all of these cases concern students who were questioned on school premises, whereas Kalmakoff, after being called out of class by the principal teacher, was removed from school by the VPSO and transported to the city building that contained the VPSO office. [68] And here it was the VPSO who told Kalmakoff that the troopers needed to get some information from him. The events before the interrogation thus weigh strongly in favor of a finding that Kalmakoff was in Miranda custody throughout the first interview. Facts intrinsic to the interrogation also support this conclusion. Kalmakoff had turned 15 only a few weeks before, and he had no previous history of delinquent acts or contact with law enforcement. Troopers Mlynarik and Stephenson were in uniform and visibly armed, and they did not tell Kalmakoff that he was free to leave or that he did not have to answer their questions. Instead, Trooper Stephenson repeatedly emphasized that Kalmakoff needed to tell them the truth. Moreover, the troopers' questions became pointed and accusatory well before the break in the interview where the trial court found that the interview became custodial, including a series of questions that directly implicated Kalmakoff in the murder. There are some facts intrinsic to the interview that, standing alone, suggest that the interview was not custodial: the troopers conducted interviews with several people throughout the day; the interview was conducted in a large, well-lit room with windows; no guards were stationed outside the room; no weapons were drawn; and the interview was described as informal and quiet. [69] But in light of all the relevant facts, these circumstances do not change our conclusion that, from the beginning of the first interview, Kalmakoff's freedom was restrained in such a way that a reasonable person in Kalmakoff's position would not have felt free to leave or break off questioning. Kalmakoff was in custody for Miranda purposes throughout the first interview and was therefore entitled to Miranda warnings prior to questioning. Because the troopers failed to administer those warnings, all of Kalmakoff's statements made during the first interview were obtained illegally and must be suppressed.