Opinion ID: 2638537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Invoking right to counsel

Text: [ś 39] Mr. Hannon claims the interview should have ceased after he said: if I'm going to be charged, I need to go see my lawyer. In addressing his claim, we must determine first whether Mr. Hannon was in custody during the interview so as to make applicable the right to counsel recognized in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). If he was not in custody, and the interview was non-custodial, the rights recognized in Miranda did not apply and he had no right to counsel. [ś 40] As expressed by the United States Supreme Court, Miranda set forth rules of police procedure applicable to custodial interrogation. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977). Custodial interrogation means questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id. ; Gunn v. State, 2003 WY 24, ś 8, 64 P.3d 716, ś 8 (Wyo. 2003). [P]olice officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody. It was that sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495. Applying these principles, the United States Supreme Court held in Mathiason that the defendant was not in custody where he came to the police station voluntarily, was immediately informed he was not under arrest and left the station without hindrance at the close of a thirty-minute interview. [ś 41] The determination of whether a defendant was or was not in custody at the time of questioning decides whether he was entitled to counsel because, although a request for a lawyer during custodial interrogation is sufficient to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, a person has no right to have an attorney present during a non-custodial interview. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 424, fn. 3 (1984). In the latter circumstance, law enforcement is not required to stop the interview and provide the defendant with an attorney. Ohio v. Coleman, 2002 Ohio 2068. As stated by another court: It is the right to an attorney during custodial interrogation that Miranda and its progeny protect. That right does not exist outside the context of custodial interrogation. One cannot invoke a right that does not yet exist. People v. Villalobos, 737 N.E.2d 639, 645 (Ill. 2000). See also, Commonwealth v. Carter, 1998 Va. Cir. LEXIS 277 (the defendant's request that questioning cease in a non-custodial setting did not preclude continued police questioning); State v. Relford, 623 N.W.2d 343, 348 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001) (the Miranda right to counsel cannot be anticipatorily invoked prior to custodial interrogation; in order to invoke the Miranda right to counsel, an individual must be both in custody and subject to interrogation.) Like these courts, this Court adheres to the principle that the rights recognized in Miranda, including the right to counsel, apply only in the context of custodial interrogation. Roderick v. State, 858 P.2d 538, 546 (Wyo. 1993); Glass v. State, 853 P.2d 972, 976 (Wyo. 1993); Solis v. State, 851 P.2d 1296, 1298 (Wyo. 1993) [ś 42] In determining what constitutes custodial interrogation, the relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood he was free to leave. Glass, 853 P.2d at 976. The totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether a suspect is in custody when questioned. Gunn, ś 12. Among the factors considered are: (1) whether a suspect is questioned in familiar or neutral surroundings; (2) the number of police officers present; (3) the degree of physical restraint and whether it is comparable to that associated with a formal arrest; and (4) the duration and character of the interrogation. Id., ś 9. The nature of the interrogator, the nature of the suspect, the time and place of the interrogation, the progress of the investigation at the time of the interrogation, whether the suspect is informed that his detention would not be temporary, and the elapsed amount of time between questioning and the arrest may be important factors as well. No one factor alone will necessarily establish custody for Miranda purposes, and not all factors will be relevant to a given case. Id. (citations omitted). [ś 43] We have considered these factors in several cases in determining whether questioning by law enforcement constituted custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. Most recently, in Gunn, we held that questioning was not custodial where law enforcement officers came to the suspect's home, identified themselves and their reason for being there, asked the suspect to come outside where they could speak privately, spoke with him for ten to fifteen minutes without formally arresting, handcuffing or physically restraining him in any way, asked him to go inside and obtain an item of evidence, which he did voluntarily, and then asked him to come to the sheriff's office, which he also did voluntarily. Viewing these facts from the perspective of a reasonable person in the suspect's position, we concluded the interview was not custodial because a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the interview. Id. at ś 16. [ś 44] Similarly, in Wunder v. State, 705 P.2d 333, 335 (Wyo. 1985), we applied the reasonable person test in concluding the interview was non-custodial. There, a police officer contacted the defendant at his home, advised him he would not be arrested at that time and then questioned him for fifteen to twenty minutes. We said, it cannot be said that, at the time of the interview, [the defendant]'s freedom of movement was involuntarily curtailed by the police in any way. A reasonable man in [his] position would not have considered himself to have been in police custody. Id. Glass, 853 P.2d at 976 (Wyo. 1993), likewise involved a fifteen minute interview conducted at the defendant's home where there was no indication the defendant was not free to leave or ask law enforcement to leave. We held it was non-custodial. See also, Southworth v. State, 913 P.2d 444, 449 (Wyo. 1996). [ś 45] In addition to the above cases considering police interviews conducted at the defendant's residence, we also have considered the issue where questioning occurred in a less friendly, more inherently coercive environment. In Roderick, the defendant voluntarily came to the city council chambers at the request of law enforcement for an interview. Before questioning him, the officers told the defendant he was not under arrest and could choose not to speak to them, leave at any time and have an attorney present. The defendant answered questions for one and one-half hours and then asked to leave. Before he left, the officers asked him to be fingerprinted and photographed, and he consented. We held the interview was non-custodial. [ś 46] Similarly, in Kolb v. State, 930 P.2d 1238, 1243 (Wyo. 1996), the defendant voluntarily came to the police station to be interviewed at the request of the police. The defendant was told prior to questioning that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time. Id. As the defendant's story changed in the course of the interview, the officer advised him of his Miranda rights and re-advised him of those rights as his story continued to evolve. At the time he confessed to the crime, he had already been advised of his Miranda rights. Over the defendant's claim that he was in custody before confessing because the room was locked and he was deceived into making false confessions, the trial court concluded he was not in custody and we affirmed. Id. at 1245. [ś 47] In the majority of cases in which a defendant was questioned without being advised under Miranda, the courts have held under the totality of circumstances the interrogation was non-custodial. The cases in which the courts reached a different result are distinguishable. For example, in United States v. Corral-Corral, 702 F.Supp. 1539, 1546 (D.C. Wyo. 1988) the court held a defendant who was handcuffed and placed in a barrow ditch was in custody for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda. In United States v. DiGiacomo, 579 F.2d 1211, (10th Cir. 1978), the court likewise held that a defendant who was separated from his companion and confronted by four federal agents, who told him he was suspected of passing counterfeit money, to surrender any such money in his possession and to choose between immediate arrest and voluntary appearance at the Secret Service office the following morning, was in custody and Miranda warnings were required. Additionally, in United States v. Griffin, 7 F.3d 1512, 1519 (10th Cir 1993), the court held a woman who was separated from her friend and taken to a small private office inside a police-controlled area of the airport and who was not told she could refuse to answer or leave the interview was subjected to custodial interrogation. [ś 48] We have carefully reviewed the totality of the circumstances and are persuaded based upon controlling law that Mr. Hannon was not in custody at the time he was interviewed by Deputy Mueller. No evidence was presented that he came to the sheriff's department against his will. He was told he did not have to answer questions, would not be arrested that day and was free to leave at any time. The videotape clearly shows Deputy Mueller spoke quietly and politely. There were no threats, outbursts or hostile accusations. And Mr. Hannon left the station when the interview ended. [ś 49] Any claim that a reasonable person in Mr. Hannon's position with his low I.Q. would have believed he was not free to leave is without merit. A defendant's particular traits are not relevant under the applicable objective standard unless law enforcement was aware of and influenced by such traits during the interview. United States v. Erving, 147 F.3d 1240, 1248 (10th Cir. 1998). No evidence was presented that Deputy Mueller was aware of Mr. Hannon's I.Q. or that he adjusted his tactics on the basis of such awareness. Therefore, Mr. Hannon's I.Q. is not relevant to the issue of whether the interview was custodial for Miranda purposes. Because we hold that Deputy Mueller's questioning of Mr. Hannon was non-custodial and, therefore, Mr. Hannon had no right to have counsel present during the interview, we do not address the question whether his request for counsel was equivocal or unequivocal. We turn next to the question of whether Mr. Hannon's statements during the interview were voluntary.