Opinion ID: 2616995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements Violative Of Miranda?

Text: Canaan sought to suppress his conversations with Detective Atwell in the hospital emergency room as violative of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). The Miranda rule requires that a person must be warned of certain rights prior to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after that person is taken into custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way (detained). Custody means the restraint of a person pursuant to an arrest or the order of a court or magistrate. Detention means the temporary restraint of a person by a law enforcement officer. K.S.A. 22-2202(9), (10). Canaan asserts that the test is whether reasonable persons would believe themselves to be in custody. He argues he was not free to leave the hospital or able to move around without help. Canaan also argues that because he had been chased by the police prior to the accident and escorted to the hospital by the police after the accident, reasonable persons would believe he or she was in custody. This argument is not supported by the facts. Canaan was neither arrested nor restrained while at the hospital. He was alone for significant periods of time. Canaan was not arrested for the murder until months after his release from the hospital. The evidence is uncontroverted that the initial reason the police were at the hospital was to find out when Canaan was to be released so that they could later question him about the murder. There is no evidence that Canaan was deprived of his liberty by the police at the hospital. The district court did not err in concluding that Canaan was not in custody or detained; therefore, no violation of Miranda occurred.