Opinion ID: 2585179
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circumstances intrinsic to the interrogation

Text: The state argues that the location of the interview in Sergeant Barnes's patrol car is not dispositive, or even particularly interesting. Smith responds that the police car was a police-dominated environment.There are literally dozens of cases where a court was asked to determine whether a suspect was in Miranda custody when the facts included questioning in a police car. [27] The most that can be determined from these cases is that an interview in a police car is not determinative of Miranda custody. [28] While questioning in a police car is more custodial than in one's home, it is generally less custodial than questioning at the police station. Courts have noted that the custodial atmosphere is further diluted when questioning in a police car is otherwise objectively reasonable. For example in Hintz v. State, we noted that it was reasonable to have the suspect sit in the front seat of the police car when the weather was about ten degrees below zero. [29] Recently in Blank v. State, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's conclusion that there was no Miranda custody in part because the police car was an alternative private location. [30] In Blank, the police officer told the suspect that the interview was conducted in the police car only for the sake of convenience and expressed concerns about talking in front of the suspect's children. [31] In the instant case, both rationales exist. The trial court found that the day was rather hot and that the police car's air conditioning was on. In addition, holding the interview in the police car is justified by the need for privacy. As Judge Mannheimer noted in dissent, a reasonable person would have perceived the patrol car [in the person's driveway] as a suitable place for a private conversation about the rape of a minor. Plus, the eventual presence of Larry Dean and Dave Smith validates the concern for privacy. Smith argues that the police could have questioned him in the equally private confines of his apartment. This is true. Taking into account these competing considerations, questioning in the police car favors a conclusion of custody but only minimally. Concerning when the interview occurred, Smith argues that the time of the interview was coercive because he had worked a twelve-hour graveyard shift the night before and was very tired. However, the timing of the interview is far more determinative when the interview begins at an unreasonable time. This is not the 4 a.m. interrogation found to be custodial in Orozco v. Texas. [32] The interview started at 1:49 p.m. Because we consider whether a reasonable person would think he was free to leave, the reasonable time of day of the interview favors a conclusion of no custody.
Smith candidly admits that [t]he relevant part of the interview was relatively short, 30 minutes long. This fact favors a conclusion of no custody. [33]
The parties do not dispute that two officers were present at Smith's apartment. Only Sergeant Barnes, however, conducted the interview in the patrol car. Trooper Clark was standing outside the car in the shade, out of direct view. Thus, this fact favors a conclusion of no custody.
The state and Smith raise numerous points concerning what Sergeant Barnes and Smith said and did during the interview: the overall tone of the interview, Barnes's initial assurances that Smith was not under arrest and was free to leave, the meaning of the actual words used by Barnes, Smith's greeting of his friend, Smith's request for an attorney, and Smith's statement that he wanted to get back to bed. Both sides interpret each point in their favor. The state argues that the questioning started casually and that Sergeant Barnes's tone was calm and low-key throughout the interview. Smith admits that Sergeant Barnes's voice was calm but argues that the psychological tone of the interview changed radically when the questioning became accusatory. This is the point where the court of appeals ordered suppression, after Sergeant Barnes said, And what I need to do is, is, have you tell me the truth. And I'm not gonna arrest you. Smith argues that the psychological tone changed radically at this point, but it did not. We have reviewed the tape recording of the interview. While Sergeant Barnes did accuse Smith of the crime and noted the evidence against Smith, this was not the first time that Barnes had accused Smith; Barnes had done so twice previously. [34] In addition, Barnes's demeanor remained calm and his tone of voice was, in the words of Judge Mannheimer, with which we agree, sympatheticalmost apologetic. The overall tone is noncustodial. [35] At the inception of the interview, Sergeant Barnes told Smith that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time. Smith argues that Sergeant Barnes did not tell Smith that he could remain silent and did not repeat the warnings as the questioning became accusatory. Assurances from the police that a person is not under arrest and is free to leave generally indicate a lack of custody but are not conclusive. [36] While multiple assurances would have made this case easier to decide, [37] the initial assurances tended to make a reasonable person believe he was not in custody. The state and Smith interpret Barnes's statements to Smith differently. Both agree that Barnes said, And what I need to do is, is, have you tell me the truth. And I'm not gonna arrest you. The state argues that the last sentence was a reassurance that Smith was not under arrest. Smith argues that the connecting and starting the second sentence made the assurance of not being under arrest conditional on Smith telling the truth. The state responds that use of and was simply a colloquialism. The statement is somewhat ambiguous. Ignoring contextual pauses and word usage, one could infer a conditional offerif Smith told the truth, Barnes would not arrest him. [38] However, Barnes said and instead of if; the literal meaning of Barnes's words was not a conditional offer. Furthermore, a reasonable person would interpret Sergeant Barnes's statement in context. Barnes used and to start his sentences at least twenty-one times in the short interview. Also, Barnes paused about two seconds between the two sentences. Given this context, we interpret Barnes's use of and as simply colloquial. The state notes that Smith called to his friend Dave during the interview while in the police car. The state argues that this shows Smith was comfortable and not coerced. Smith argues that his friend apparently did not hear him, which heightened the incommunicado aspects of the interview. While Smith's call to his friend might show his relative comfort in the police interview, his action is equally indicative of a nervous person trying to change the subject. Concerning Smith's argument, Dave's lack of audible response to Smith's salutation does not indicate the heightened coerciveness of the interview; if anything, Dave's appearanceand the fact that Dave appeared to have remained nearby because he spoke with Smith immediately after the interviewdiluted any atmosphere of police domination. The state and Smith also draw opposite interpretations from Smith's request to speak to a lawyer. The state argues that his request shows he knew he could terminate the interview. Smith argues that it shows he felt he was under arrest and needed a lawyer. Both contentions are plausible. The state also highlights Smith's later statement: I'd like to get to bed as soon as I can [because] I'm tired. The state argues that if Smith thought he was free to go back to bed, he must have thought he was free to go. Smith argues that his statement only indicates his hope that he would be free to go back to bed. Although Smith does not note it in his brief, he also said something that suggested he did not feel free to leave: Well you wanna walk over there with me Trooper Clark? Both of these points have reasonable interpretations for and against custody. Thus, neither would be decisive to a reasonable person. In sum, the tone of the interview, Barnes's assurance that Smith was free to leave at any time, and the presence of Smith's friends indicate a non-custodial interview.
The police did not physically restrain Smith during the interview. Sergeant Barnes did not seize him and walk him to the car. Nor was Smith handcuffed. The doors of the patrol car were not locked. Both Sergeant Barnes and Trooper Clark were in uniform and armed. Smith argues that he thought he was locked in the police car. In addition, Smith may have thought Clark was outside guarding against his escape. The defendant's subjective belief of custody is not controlling, [39] but it is a factor in the totality insofar as it may reflect a reasonable person's understanding. The weight of this factor is dependent upon Smith's credibility. In the absence of a trial court finding that Smith actually thought he was locked in the police car, [40] we conclude that this factor indicates custody only slightly.
Smith notes that he was questioned not only as a suspect, but as the guilty party. Barnes put four confrontational questions to Smith. [A] reasonable person would conclude he was in custody if the interrogation is close and persistent, involving leading questions and the discounting of the suspect's denials of involvement. [41] Barnes's accusations make the interview seem custodial. The state counters that accusatory questioning simply shows that police have focused suspicion on the suspect, and both the United States Supreme Court and this court have rejected the focus of suspicion test as the test for custody. It is true that both courts have rejected the police's subjective focus of suspicion as the sole factor in determining custody. [42] However, the police's subjective focus, when made clear to the suspect in an objective manner like accusatory questioning, is still a relevant factor. [43] Thus, the fact that Sergeant Barnes asked multiple accusatory questions does weigh in favor of a conclusion of custody.