Opinion ID: 2585179
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When and where it occurred

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.