Opinion ID: 1551205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Questioning at the Defendant's Residence Constituted a Custodial Interrogation Requiring Miranda Warnings

Text: The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he had made to the police at his residence, which he claims were made without benefit of Miranda warnings. [22] The defendant argues that the trial court improperly concluded that he was not the subject of a custodial interrogation at the time, and that Miranda warnings were, therefore, not required. In its oral decision, following a suppression hearing, the trial court found that the defendant's statements were not the product of custodial interrogation because he had consented to the police entry of his home and the statements themselves were voluntary. The trial court credited the police officers' testimony that they had gone to the defendant's home only to get his side of the story as part of their investigation, they did not draw their weapons, he invited the officers into his home, and the defendant cooperatively and calmly told them that he had tied up the complainant and kidnapped her for money. The trial court further credited Beebe's testimony that the defendant had stated words to the effect of, I guess I'm going with you, after relating his story of what had happened. The trial court concluded that the defendant was not in custody until he acknowledged that he was going with the officers and was handcuffed, both of which occurred after he told the police what had happened. The trial court further found that the defendant's statements at his residence were voluntary because there was no show of force and the defendant's will had not been overborne in any way. . . . Two threshold conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the warnings constitutionally required by Miranda : (1) the defendant must have been in custody; and (2) the defendant must have been subjected to police interrogation. . . . [A]lthough the circumstances of each case must certainly influence a determination of whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of receiving Miranda protection, the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. . . . A person is in custody only if, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed [that] he was not free to leave. . . . Further, the United States Supreme Court has adopted an objective, reasonable person test for determining whether a defendant is in custody. . . . Thus, in determining whether Miranda rights are required, the only relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with a formal arrest. . . . The defendant bears the burden of proving that he was in custody for Miranda purposes. . . . Two discrete inquiries are essential to determine custody: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. . . . The first inquiry is factual, and we will not overturn the trial court's determination of the historical circumstances surrounding the defendant's interrogation unless it is clearly erroneous. . . . The second inquiry, however, calls for application of the controlling legal standard to the historical facts. . . . The ultimate determination of whether a defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation, therefore, presents a mixed question of law and fact, over which our review is de novo. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 434-35, 838 A.2d 947, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809, 125 S. Ct. 36, 160 L. Ed. 2d 12 (2004). In the present case, the defendant does not attack the trial court's underlying factual findings, and our review of the record indicates that they are supported by the testimony of the various police officers, including Beebe and Thornton. Rather, the defendant contends that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave because five police officers arrived at his house in separate vehicles at approximately 4:30 a.m., and that opening his door and inviting the officers inside was only bowing to superior force because his choice was interrogation in the dark outside, or interrogation inside the lighted house. He also notes that the officers did not tell him that he was free to leave or to ask them to leave. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that the defendant did not carry his burden of proving that he was in custody at the time he made his initial statement to the police. We find instructive our decision in State v. Johnson, 241 Conn. 702, 719-20, 699 A.2d 57 (1997), in which we concluded that the interview of a suspect in the kitchen of his father's house was not custodial. In Johnson, detectives investigating the murder of a state trooper during the course of a burglary went to the home of the suspect's father, where the vehicle considered the getaway car had supposedly been parked at the time of the shooting. Id., 716. Two detectives and a uniformed police officer went to the house and saw the carthey then saw the defendant, the suspect's brother, approach the house in his car, slow down as if to turn, but continue past the driveway. Id. Suspecting that the defendant might know something about [his brother's] involvement in the burglary and shooting, [one detective] and the uniformed police officer entered the unmarked police car and drove after the defendant. They had driven approximately 100 yards when the defendant turned his car around and returned to the house. The police followed him into the driveway. The detectives asked the defendant if he would be willing to speak to them inside the house. The defendant agreed. The detectives also asked the defendant's father for permission to speak with his son in his house. He also agreed. The two detectives and the defendant sat at the kitchen table while the defendant's father and the uniformed police officer stayed outside. [One detective] told the defendant that the defendant knew why the detectives were there and that the defendant had a story to tell. [The other detective] then produced a copy of the composite drawing. The defendant stated that he did not know how to begin, and [the first detective] suggested that the defendant use a `once upon a time' method. The defendant then told the detectives about the burglary and the shooting of [a state trooper]. At some point during the defendant's recounting of events, his father entered the kitchen to get a portable telephone and left. The detective then asked the defendant to repeat the story with more detail, and the defendant did so. Id., 716-17. This court concluded that the interrogation was not custodial, noting that, [t]he interview took place in the familiar surroundings of his father's kitchen. There was no evidence that the defendant was ever handcuffed or otherwise restrained at the time of the statements, nor did the officers use or threaten the use of force, or display their weapons. The court expressly found that the police had been neutral and reserved. The defendant had access to a telephone. The defendant's father entered the kitchen during this period. The defendant never expressed a desire to leave, stop talking, or speak with his father. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendant has met his burden of proving custodial interrogation. Id., 720. In the present case, evidence at the suppression hearing indicated that the police went to the house to speak to the defendant and get his side of what Beebe called a fairly bizarre story, and found the defendant to be calm and cooperative with them. He declined their request to step outside, but invited the police into his house. He told the police that he knew why they were there, and answered affirmatively in response to their question that it was about the complainant. The encounter lasted only ten or fifteen minutes. The officers' guns remained holstered, and the defendant was not handcuffed until after his arrest following his admission of involvement in the kidnapping, even at which point he was permitted to go get his shoes. Accordingly, we conclude that the defendant's statement was not the product of custodial interrogation. B