Opinion ID: 2625609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Right to Remain Silent during Custodial Interrogation

Text: Before conducting a custodial interrogation of a suspect, police must inform the suspect that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); U.S. Const. amend. V. A suspect may cut off questioning at any time during a custodial interrogation by clearly articulating a wish to remain silent. [4] Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1129-30; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The suspect must specifically waive the right to remain silent for police to proceed with a custodial interrogation. Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1129-30; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602. An interrogation is custodial when it is 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. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. A suspect is interrogated for Miranda purposes whenever the suspect is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. Thus, interrogation includes any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. People v. Madrid, 179 P.3d 1010, 1014 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). We conduct a totality of the circumstances inquiry to determine whether an officer interrogated a suspect. People v. Gonzales, 987 P.2d 239, 241 (Colo.1999). This inquiry focuses on whether the officer reasonably should have known that the officer's words or actions would cause the suspect to perceive that he or she was being interrogated, whether those words or actions were calculated to elicit incriminating statements, and whether in light of the interrogation environment the police compelled the incriminating statements. See id. at 241-42. An `interrogation environment' created by the interplay of interrogation and custody [may] `subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner' and thereby `undermine the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.' [5] Innis, 446 U.S. at 299, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 457-58, 86 S.Ct. 1602). In conducting our inquiry into words and actions of the police, we consider a variety of factors, including the suspect's harried emotional state, the nature of the charges, and the questioner's use of relationship-building efforts. People v. Wood, 135 P.3d 744, 751 (Colo.2006). While Miranda established that the police must respect a suspect's expressed wish to remain silent, Miranda did not resolve what circumstances, if any, permit a resumption of questioning. See People v. Quezada, 731 P.2d 730, 733 (Colo.1987). Miranda did not create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further police questioning after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102-03, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). Instead, as Mosley held: A reasonable and faithful interpretation of the Miranda opinion must rest on the intention of the Court in that case to adopt fully effective means ... to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored.... The critical safeguard identified in the passage at issue is a person's right to cut off questioning. Through the exercise of his option to terminate questioning he can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation. The requirement that law enforcement authorities must respect a person's exercise of that option counteracts the coercive pressures of the custodial setting. We therefore conclude that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored. Id. at 103-04, 96 S.Ct. 321 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Thus, once a suspect has clearly articulated the wish to remain silent, additional circumstances must justify resumption of questioning by the police. Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1135. To determine whether the police scrupulously honored a suspect's expressed wish to remain silent, we consider the particular circumstances in which the police obtained the suspect's statement. Quezada, 731 P.2d at 733-34. We focus on four factors enumerated in Mosley: (1) whether the police immediately ceased the initial interrogation upon the suspect's request; (2) whether the police resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time; (3) whether the police gave a fresh set of Miranda warnings prior to the second interrogation; and (4) whether the second interrogation was restricted to a crime that was not the subject of the first interrogation. Id. None of these factors is conclusive, and this list is not exhaustive. [6] Id. Each of the four Mosley factors is self-explanatory, with the exception of the second factor, for which the Mosley decision did not suggest any talismanic durational minimum. United States v. Hsu, 852 F.2d 407, 410 (9th Cir.1988). Mosley held that police fully honored the suspect's right to remain silent where the first interviewer immediately ceased interrogation, a second interviewer resumed questioning after two hours, the second interviewer gave fresh Miranda warnings at the outset of the second interview, and the interviews addressed different crimes. 423 U.S. at 104-05, 96 S.Ct. 321. Our case law has analyzed the second Mosley factor in terms of whether an interval is a significant period of time. Quezada, 731 P.2d at 733-34. In Quezada, we held that police scrupulously honored the suspect's rights where the first interviewer immediately ceased interrogation, a second interviewer (who did not know of the first interview) resumed questioning after forty-five minutes, the second interviewer gave fresh Miranda warnings prior to interrogation, and both interviews concerned the same crime. Id. at 734-36. Courts generally decline to apply bright-line rules with respect to the second Mosley factor, preferring to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all factors. See, e.g., Hsu, 852 F.2d at 408, 412 (while a thirty-minute interval between questioning might ordinarily incline [the court] toward a conclusion that [the] right to cut off questioning was not respected, other applicable factors demonstrated that officers scrupulously honored the defendant's rights). In two cases, courts have held that the police did not scrupulously honor the right to remain silent where intervals of forty-five minutes and three hours occurred between questioning. See United States v. Hernandez, 574 F.2d 1362, 1369 (5th Cir.1978); United States v. Olof, 527 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1975). An interval of twenty-four hours is generally considered significant under Mosley. [7] See, e.g., Jackson v. Wyrick, 730 F.2d 1177, 1180 (8th Cir.1984).