Opinion ID: 2634418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Elmarr Was in Custody When He Was Interrogated

Text: For purposes of determining whether Miranda warnings are required, a suspect is in custody when his or her freedom of action is curtailed to a `degree associated with formal arrest.' People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698, 705 (Colo.2001) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)). In assessing the question of custody, we consider such factors as the time, place, and purpose of the interrogation; the persons present during the interrogation; the words the officers spoke to the suspect; the officers' tone of voice and general demeanor; the length and mood of the interrogation; whether any restraint or limitation was placed on the suspect's movement during interrogation; the officers' response to any of the suspect's questions; whether directions were given to the suspect during interrogation; and the suspect's verbal or nonverbal responses to such directions. Matheny, 46 P.3d at 465-66. None of these factors is determinative, and the question of custody is determined in light of the totality of the circumstances. People v. Dracon, 884 P.2d 712, 717 (Colo. 1994). However, because the test of custody is an objective one, unarticulated thoughts or views of the officers and suspects are irrelevant. See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) (Our decisions make clear that the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.); Matheny, 46 P.3d at 468. Thus, the People are correct in their argument that the trial court erred when, in determining whether Elmarr was in custody, it relied (in part) upon the finding that Captain Epp likely suspected that Elmarr was involved in Carol Murphy's murder and attempted to elicit incriminating statements from him. That finding has no relevance to the custody question. We therefore review de novo whether the trial court's other factual findings, and the undisputed evidence in the record, establish that Elmarr was in custody. See Matheny, 46 P.3d at 468 (performing same analysis and ignoring trial court's reliance on subjective factors). Our analysis is guided by precedent considering somewhat analogous facts. For instance, in California v. Beheler , officers asked the suspect to accompany them to the police station, transported him there, informed him he was not under arrest, and questioned him for less than thirty minutes before he voluntarily left the police station. 463 U.S. 1121, 1122, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983). The court found that these facts established that the suspect was not in custody. Id. at 1126, 103 S.Ct. 3517. Similarly, in Oregon v. Mathiason , the officers asked the suspect to come to the police station to be interviewed. The suspect drove himself to the station, was immediately told he was not under arrest, was told that he was a suspect in a crime, and interviewed for approximately thirty minutes behind closed doors in an interview room before he left the station voluntarily. 429 U.S. 492, 493-94, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). Again, the court found the suspect was not in custody. Id. at 495, 97 S.Ct. 711. We came to the same conclusion in Matheny, where the suspect was asked to come to the police station to be interviewed, drove himself and the police officers to the station, was escorted to an interview room, was told he was free to leave and not under arrest, and then was interviewed for approximately an hour and a half. 46 P.3d at 456-57, 467. In People v. Trujillo , however, we found that a suspect was in custody where he was asked to come to the police station for an interview and drove himself to the station; upon arrival, he was never told he was free to leave or not under arrest, was asked accusatory questions for over an hour and a half, was asked to submit to a mug shot and a polygraph test, and was asked to produce certain evidence to the police. 784 P.2d 788, 789-90, 792 (Colo.1990). Similarly, in Dracon we found the suspect was in custody where she agreed to accompany officers to the police station, riding in the front seat of the police car, and was taken through a non-public area to an office and questioned for almost three hours; she was never told she was free to leave or not under arrest, and was made to wait for another three hours in the police station before being interviewed yet again. 884 P.2d at 714-15, 717. Finally, we found that a suspect was in custody in People v. Minjarez, where police officers came to the hospital where the suspect's child was being treated, asked nurses to bring him to a hospital interview room the officers had procured, directed the suspect to sit in a chair away from the closed door, and told the suspect he was free to go but then subjected him to aggressive interrogation consisting of leading questions and accusations of guiltfor twenty of the forty-five minutes of the interview. 81 P.3d 348, 351-52, 357 (Colo.2003). Precedent does not provide a neat formula for deciding the case at hand, and indeed there can be no such formula as each case will present novel factual patterns not previously addressed. We have provided some general rules, however. On the one hand, we have heeded the warning that one is not in custody simply because the questioning takes place in the station house. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. 711; see Matheny, 46 P.3d at 468. On the other hand, an officer's statement that a suspect is free to leave is not sufficient to establish that an interview is non-custodial, when all the external circumstances appear to the contrary. See Minjarez, 81 P.3d at 357. Though the case at hand presents a close question, we find that Elmarr was in custody while interrogated by officers in the Sheriff's Department in 1987. No one fact leads us to this conclusion, but rather the totality of the circumstances combine to create a custodial atmosphere. Though Elmarr was asked to accompany police officers to the station for questioning, such a question does not necessarily make the event voluntary, as one could interpret the question to be one where no is not an available answerespecially in the circumstances present here. It is significant that Elmarr was transported in the back of a police car to the non-public area of the Sheriff's Department, where he was directed to wait and then interrogated in a small, closed-door interview room. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 6.6(d), at 735 (3d ed. 2007) (If the so-called `invitation' [to an interview at the police station] involves the person going to the station in the company of the police, then a finding of custody is much more likely.). Importantly, he was never told he was not under arrest, or that he was free to leave. In fact, the trial court found that Elmarr was instructed to wait for officers in a closed room, and was thereafter interrogated at length in that room. Furthermore, it is significant that Elmarr was subjected to aggressive interrogation, where the interrogators expressed doubts regarding his truthfulness, discounted his denials, confronted him with potential evidence of his guilt, and accused him of committing murder. See id., § 6.6(f), at 751 (And surely a reasonable person would conclude he was in custody if the interview is close and persistent, involving leading questions and the discounting of the suspect's denials of involvement.). Such interrogation by multiple officers in a small room isolated from others helped create a sense of custody. The custodial atmosphere continued after Elmarr requested an attorneyeven then, he was kept in the closed-door [4] interview room and was asked about his willingness to submit to a polygraph test, and then was directed to disrobe for photographs, about which he was told, You really don't have a choice. All of these factors combined to prompt Elmarr to ask the reasonable question, When do I get to go home? All of these facts lead to the conclusion that Elmarr's freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest, and a reasonable person under those circumstances would feel that he was in custody. [5] See Polander, 41 P.3d at 705.