Opinion ID: 750919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements made prior to Miranda warning

Text: 11 Before law enforcement agents question a person in Custody, they must advise that person of his constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966). However, this applies only to statements which are made in response to interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 (1980). Where the facts are not in dispute, the question of whether a defendant was subjected to an interrogation is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo. United States v. Mereno-Flores, 33 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.1994). Statements which are spontaneous and not in response to questions by agents are admissible as volunteered statements. United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir.1992) The court reviews de novo the voluntariness of a confession. United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305, 1310 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1055 (1996). 12 While Fernandez was indeed in custody for the purposes of the Miranda requirement, see United States v. Henley, 984 F.2d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir.1993), the circumstances of his being subjected to the field show-up after waiting in the police car were not the functional equivalent of interrogation. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. at 300, (interrogation reflect[s] a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself). The statements Fernandez made during the field show-up were spontaneous, and the police did not exert any measure of compulsion on Fernandez above and beyond that inherent in his being detained awaiting witness identification. Thus, this statement was not the product of interrogation, but rather was Admissible as a voluntary statement not subject to the Miranda requirement.