Opinion ID: 1571939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Rigterink in Custody for Miranda Purposes?

Text: We acknowledge that we must defer to the factual determinations of the trial court if those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence from the record. See, e.g., Connor, 803 So.2d at 607-08. In contrast, we review de novo the application of the law to those facts. See id. at 608. Before trial, Rigterink moved to suppress only the videotaped portion of his police interrogation. During the suppression hearing, PCSO Detective Jerry Connolly testified on behalf of the State, and the defense presented a partial transcript of Rigterink's confession (to verify the defective right-to-counsel warning that Rigterink received) and a copy of the defective PCSO rights-warning card. [26] Detective Connolly's testimony included the following relevant facts:  PCSO detectives previously interviewed Rigterink at his home on September 25, 2003, and October 9, 2003. At those interviews, Rigterink admitted that he had set up a marijuana buy over the phone with victim Jarvis on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 (the day of the murders), but claimed that the buy was scheduled for a different day (Friday, September 26, 2003);  Rigterink agreed to visit the PCSO on October 10, 2003, to provide elimination prints, but failed to show up for the appointment;  Rigterink eventually called and rescheduled for October 13, 2003, but he also failed to show up for that appointment;  Plainclothes PCSO detectives, including Detective Connolly, were finally able to reestablish contact with Rigterink at his parents' home on the morning of October 16, 2003;  Rigterink voluntarily agreed to provide elimination prints, and as he was getting dressed, he spontaneously stated that two methamphetamine dealers from Lake Wales may have murdered the victims;  Rigterink was never restrained, and his parents voluntarily drove him to the PCSO's BCI office for fingerprinting;  Detective Connolly requested that Rigterink's parents remain in the lobby during the interview process, but it is unclear whether Rigterink was aware of this arrangement;  PCSO latent-fingerprint analyst Patricia Newton and her supervisor, Bill Thomas, were present and fingerprinted Rigterink before his interview. The detectives prearranged for the analysts to compare Rigterink's fingerprints with the bloody crime-scene latents during their interview of Rigterink;  Rigterink's interview began at 11:00 a.m. on October 16. The detectives questioned him in a six-by-eight foot polygraph-examination room, which was sound-insulated with protective foam. The room contained three chairs and a small desk;  At least two detectives were in the room at all times, and other detectives which included Detective Raczynski, Detective Scott Rench, and Major Martinentered and exited the room during the questioning process;  The door was closed, but not locked, while the interview or interrogation took place ( however, it is unclear how this detail holds any significance because there was no testimony that Rigterink was aware whether the door was locked or unlocked);  The detectives and Rigterink discussed his previous descriptions of his whereabouts and actions on September 24, 2003 (i.e., the day of the murders). They began by discussing Rigterink's use of his father's Toyota pickup. Once they established this fact, the detectives moved to discussing Rigterink's relationship with Jarvis beginning with September 21 or 22, 2003, which were the dates on which Rigterink believed that he first borrowed his father's pickup;  Rigterink readily admitted that on September 22, 2003 (two days before the murders), he purchased marijuana at Jarvis's home;  Rigterink provided his first story, which was that he was never at Jarvis' residence on the day of the murders;  The detectives stated that they did not believe this story, and Rigterink presented his second story, which was (1) that he went to Jarvis's home on the day of the murders to purchase marijuana, and (2) that Jarvis was unharmed when he left at approximately 2:30 or 3 p.m.;  Sometime during the questioning process, Detective Connolly received a message from the fingerprint analysts, which stated that Rigterink's prints matched the bloody latents recovered from the crime scene;  After Rigterink completed his second story, the detectives confronted him with the fact that his prints matched the bloody latents discovered at the crime scene;  Rigterink then presented his third story, which was that he visited Jarvis' home on the day of the murders but arrived after the deaths occurred and left before the police arrived;  After Rigterink completed his third story, the detectives again accused him of dissembling, and he then responded that he would tell them the whole truth;  The detectives then advised Rigterink of his Miranda rights, and Detective Connolly briefly stepped out of the room to request that a technician turn on the interrogation room's hidden video-recording equipment;  The initial, untaped portion of the interrogation lasted three hours and twenty-four minutes (i.e., from 11:00 a.m. until 2:24 p.m.) before Detective Connolly decided to Mirandize Rigterink and videotape his statements;  Detective Connolly testified that he Mirandized Rigterink to ensure the admissibility of his confession, and that Rigterink and Connolly signed the rights-waiver form in each other's presence after Connolly read Rigterink his rights. Connolly had no idea that the rights-waiver form was deficient with regard to its description of the right to counsel;  Rigterink then confessed, but couched his confession in terms of a series of Polaroid snapshots, and claimed that he could not actually remember stabbing either of the victims (although he did admit that he physically struggled with Jarvis);  Rigterink never asserted his right to remain silent, his right to terminate questioning, or his right to speak with an attorney  prior to questioning;  During the confession, Rigterink physically demonstrated his movements and actions vis-à-vis the victims and drew an accompanying diagram (State's exhibit 466);  After Rigterink confessed, Detective Connolly called an assistant state attorney to ensure that he had probable cause to arrest Rigterink. The ASA agreed that Detective Connolly had probable cause, and the detectives arrested Rigterink in the office and officially placed him in PCSO custody. The arrest occurred at approximately 5:30 p.m. (6.5 hours after the interrogation began);  Rigterink was 32 years old at the time of questioning, had completed college course work, and was alert and awake and very energetic during the taped portion of the interrogation;  Until his arrest, Rigterink was not placed in handcuffs or otherwise restrained, but the detectives never told him that he was free to leave;  By the time of his October 16 interrogation, Rigterink was the primary suspect in the Jarvis-Sousa murders, but Detective Connolly did not provide any indication that PCSO personnel informed Rigterink of this status. Based on these facts, the trial court denied Rigterink's suppression motion. While the trial court's order included a minor reference to the irrelevant, undisclosed subjective intent of the PCSO detectives, [27] it generally provided a good overview of the relevant facts. In support of its order, the trial court relied upon Cillo v. State, 849 So.2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which held that a defendant was not in custody under this Court's four-part Ramirez test where: (1) the defendant voluntarily agreed to accompany two Sarasota County Sheriff's deputies to a sheriff's office for an interview (similar to Rigterink ); (2) the entire interview was videotaped and took place in a small interview room (similar to Rigterink save for the fact that only a portion of Rigterink's interrogation was taped); (3) The atmosphere of the interview was conversational, and no threats or promises were made (similar to Rigterink in that no threats or promises were made); and (4) the detectives informed the defendant of the victim's allegations against him, but did not confront him with physical evidence of his guilt ( different from Rigterink ); and (5) the detectives informed the defendant that he was not under arrest and that he could leave at any time ( different from Rigterink ). Id. at 355-57 (emphasis supplied). The trial court did not explain how these factual variations might have impacted its custody determination, if at all. The facts established during the suppression hearing, which the trial court adequately summarized in its order, have thus set the scene of inquiry. See Alvarado, 541 U.S. at 663, 124 S.Ct. 2140. Given these factual circumstances, the second step of the custody analysis is to determine whether a reasonable person [would] have felt [that] he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Alvarado, 541 U.S. at 663, 124 S.Ct. 2140 (quoting Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. 457). As stated above, Ramirez provides the following question-based channeling mechanism to answer this question: (1) the manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning; (2) the purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; [and] (4) whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning. 739 So.2d at 574 (citing Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 558) (formatting altered). Similar to many other Fourth and Fifth Amendment inquiries, no individual factor is singularly determinative; [28] rather, the totality of circumstances controls, and the dispositive inquiry remains whether a reasonable person placed in the same position would believe that his or her freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with actual arrest. Ramirez, 739 So.2d at 573. With this standard in mind, we apply the four Ramirez factors to the competent, substantial evidence contained within the record.
The first Ramirez factor addresses the manner in which law enforcement summoned the defendant for questioning and what objective impetus caused the defendant to attend. See 739 So.2d at 574. Here, Rigterink voluntarily traveled with his parents to the BCI office to provide elimination prints and to speak with PCSO detectives concerning his activities and whereabouts on the day of the murders. Rigterink was not arrested and was not restrained for purposes of officer safety. Moreover, he rode with his parents to the BCI office. This factor militates in favor of the conclusion that Rigterink was not in custody for purposes of Miranda.