Document: 541 U.S. 652 YARBOROUGH, WARDENv.ALVARADO No. 02-1684. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 1, 2004. Decided June Respondent Alvarado helped Paul Soto try to steal a truck, leading the death truck's owner. was called in for an interview with Los Angeles detective Comstock. 17 years old at time, and his parents brought him station waited lobby during interview. Comstock took small room where only two them were present. The lasted about hours, not given warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. Although he first denied being present shooting, slowly began change story, finally admitting that had victim's truck hide gun after murder. twice asked if needed break and, when over, returned parents, who drove home. After California charged murder attempted robbery, trial court motion suppress statements on grounds. In affirming Alvarado's conviction, District Appeal (hereinafter state court) ruled required because been custody test articulated Thompson Keohane, 516 99, 112, which requires consider circumstances surrounding interrogation then determine whether reasonable person would have felt liberty leave. Federal agreed habeas review, but Ninth Circuit reversed, holding erred failing account youth inexperience evaluating position free leave Noting this has considered suspect's juvenile status other criminal law contexts, see, e. g., Haley Ohio, 332 596, 599, Appeals held court's error warranted relief Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) it "resulted decision ... involved unreasonable application . clearly established law, as determined by [this] Court," 28 C. § 2254(d)(1). Held: proper factors reached conclusion purposes police Pp. 660-669. (a) AEDPA federal courts state-court law. Clearly "refers holdings, opposed dicta, Court's decisions time relevant decision." Williams Taylor, 529 362, 412. is objective test. Two discrete inquiries are essential: (1) interrogation, (2) those circumstances, terminate "Once players' lines actions reconstructed, must apply resolve ultimate inquiry: there formal arrest or restraint freedom movement degree associated arrest." Thompson, supra, 112. 660-663. (b) adjudication did involve concluded custody. meaning "unreasonable" can depend part specificity legal rule. If rule specific, range judgment may be narrow. Applications plainly correct incorrect. Other rules more general, their emerge over time. general rule, leeway reaching outcomes case determinations. Cf. Wright West, 505 277, 308-309. Fair-minded jurists could disagree fits within matrix prior decisions. Certain facts weigh against finding transport require appear particular cf. Oregon Mathiason, 429 492, 495; they threaten suggest placed arrest, ibid.; remained interview, suggesting brief, see Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 441-442; appealed interest telling truth helpful officer, S., wanted take break; end went home, ibid. point opposite direction. interviewed station; four times longer than 30-minute Mathiason; tell leave; guardians rather arriving own accord; allegedly rebuffed. Given these differing indications, standard reasonable. Indeed, number echo per curiam summary reversal we found clear suspect 663-666. (c) failure age does provide basis opinions applying mentioned age, much less mandated its consideration. indications experience enforcement rejected reliance such factors. See, Berkemer, 442, n. 35, 430-432. It therefore improper grant them. There important conceptual difference between line cases from contexts considering experience. inquiry test, furthers "the clarity [Miranda's] rule," 430, ensuring need "gues[s] [the circumstances] issue before deciding how interrogate suspect," id., 431. This reasonably viewed different doctrinal tests actual mindset suspect, concluding should also inquiry, ignored argument states designed give guidance police, while consideration individual characteristics—including age—could creating subjective 495-496. Reliance history 2254(d)(1)'s deferential standard, de novo matter. most cases, will know history. See 430-431. Even do, relationship experiences likelihood feel often speculative. Officers contingent psychological suspects advised rights. 431-432. 666-669. 316 F. 3d 841, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. 669. BREYER, dissenting STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, joined, 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Deborah Jane Chuang, Deputy Attorney General California, argued cause petitioner. With her briefs Bill Lockyer, General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Pamela Hamanaka, Senior Donald E. De Nicola, Kenneth Byrne, Supervising General. 3 John P. Elwood States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Olson, Wray, Dreeben, Watson. 4 Tara K. Allen, appointment 540 1043, respondent. Thomas J. Phalen H. Blume.* 5 JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 6 Under (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, writ corpus behalf pursuant contrary to, of, States." unreasonably applied respondent purposes. Hickman, 841 (2002). We reverse. 7 * Michael parking lot shopping mall Santa Fe Springs, California. larger group teenagers night. decided help. pulled out .357 Magnum approached driver, Francisco Castaneda, standing near emptying trash into dumpster. demanded money ignition keys Castaneda. Alvarado, five months short 18th birthday, passenger side door crouched down. When Castaneda refused comply Soto's demands, shot killing him. gun. 8 County Sheriff's Cheryl led investigation Castaneda's death. About month left word house contacted mother work message she wished speak Alvarado. Pico Rivera Station around lunchtime. They interviewed. contends 9 interviewing 12:30 p.m. recorded knowledge. Only 436 (1966). asking recount events night shooting. On night, explained, drinking alcohol friend's some friends acquaintances. few home rest walked nearby use public telephones. initial telling, it. back "just bed." App. 101. 10 Unpersuaded, pressed on: "Q. Okay. real good up until everything you've said it's pretty accurate till point, except you 11 "A. shooting? 12 Uh huh, 13 Well I never seen no 14 I'm afraid did. 15 16 beg differ you. I've told quite witnesses saying opposite. That 18 So why don't deep breath, like before, very best thing honest. You can't many people get expect aren't going truth, okay? Now granted maybe one person, might able keep your fingers crossed say, god hope doesn't problem all simply doing giving opportunity got story sudden something way far fetched different." Id., 101-102 (punctuation added). 19 At story. First acknowledged carjacking occurred claimed what happened hesitated say more, tried encourage discuss appealing sense honesty bring man justice. 106 ("[W]hat looking you'll truth"); 105-106 ("I difficult comes `drop dime' somebody[,] [but] parent, mother, brother, sister, darn well want killer] go jail `cause right someone's life ."). admitted door. Next Soto, knew armed, explained expected scare driver gun, kill anyone. 127. Toward break. declined. sheriff's waiting. father 20 A later, first-degree robbery. Citing Miranda, moved ground noncustodial. 196. together, testified defense. He offered innocent explanation conduct, testifying off nearby. government's cross-examination relied statement having made others. statements, prosecution countered playing excerpts audio recording 21 During cross-examination, "was friendly conversation," 438, "sort flow [Alvarado] Detective Comstock," 439, "feel coerced threatened any way" jury convicted judge later reduced conviction second-degree comparatively minor role offense. sentenced prison 15-years-to-life. 22 direct appeal, Second Appellate affirmed. People 74 Cal. 4th 1099, 88 Rptr. 2d 688 (1999) (unpublished part). contention excluded warnings given. so required. upon 112 (1995), reviewed Pet. Cert. C-17. emphasized absence intense aggressive tactics noted discretionary review. 23 petition Central ED CV-00-326-VAP(E) (2000), B-1 B-10. "At minimum," added, review provided 2254(d) foreclosed relief. B-7. 24 First, voluntariness confessions waiver privilege self-incrimination. 843 (citing, inter alia, 599-601 (1948), re Gault, 387 45 (1967)). light authorities, factor inquiry. 3d, 843. record likely conclude experienced adult, reasoned. extra "safeguards commensurate defendant." 850. According Appeals, effect substantial turned custodial interrogation. 25 next obtain deference determination bar relief, held, relevance whole compelled "extension principle relevant" context 853. status, "simply 17-year-old, interviews, leave." 854-855 (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 certiorari. 539 986 (2003). II 27 begin determining For 2254(d)(1), 412 (2000). look governing principles set forth renders Lockyer Andrade, 538 63, 71-72 itself preinterrogation interrogations compulsion inherent surroundings." 458. "custodial interrogation" meant "questioning initiated officers taken otherwise deprived action significant way." 444. facts. 29 492 (1977) (per curiam). officer burglary victim identified arranged meet station. outset questioning, stated belief arrest. guilt. allowed questioning "no indication place suspect's] depart restricted 495. come voluntarily station, informed Ibid. 30 Beheler, 463 1121 (1983) curiam), same result similar Mathiason. distinguished Mathiason based described differences totality circumstances. Beheler shortly crime occurred; earlier day; emotionally distraught; known police; parolee necessary cooperate police. 1124-1125. each certainly influence" determination, reemphasized 1125 indistinguishable elapsed irrelevant 1125. 31 Our recent instruct situation perceive 420 (1984), stopped suspected drunk questions. beginning traffic stop, do failed sobriety beer smoking marijuana. stop noncustodial despite officer's intent communicated driver. "A policeman's unarticulated plan bearing question `in custody' time," explained. 442. "[T]he understood situation." footnote, cited New York view preferable "`place burden anticipating frailties idiosyncrasies every whom question.'" 35 (quoting P., N. Y. 9-10, 233 255, 260 32 Stansbury 511 318 (1994) confirmed analytical framework. depends views harbored either interrogating questioned." 323. Courts examine "all "how questioned gauge breadth action." 322, 325 alteration 33 Finally, 99 following description test: 34 "Two essential determination: first, interrogation; second, Once scene footnote turn now us ask claim "involved application" Williams, 413 ("Under `unreasonable application' clause, identifies applies prisoner's case"). term "`unreasonable'" "a common world accordingly, judges familiar meaning." 410. nature course Applying specific demand element judgment. As result, rule's specificity. case-by-case 308-309 (1992) (KENNEDY, judgment). 36 Based principles, our Ignoring 2254(d)(1) moment, fairminded hand, certain brief. 441-442. fact, according counsel "`not long.'" 186. focused crimes Alvarado's. Instead pressuring threat prosecution, officer. addition, All consistent environment "clear facts" 494 37 Unlike accord, making extent control presence unclear. Counsel alleges rebuffed, fact — someone otherwise. These favor 38 lead hold nowhere close mark "unreasonable here. cannot conducting independent "[A] concludes law] incorrectly." Woodford Visciotti, 537 19, 24-25 (2002) Relief available objectively unreasonable. 410; 75. granted. III 39 placing considerable enforcement. analysis, press importance appeal proceedings. however, emphasis "`extend [of status] new context'" case, requiring issuance writ. 853 Anthony Cambra, 236 568, 578 (CA9 2000)). 40 petitioner extend rationale hand decision. Brief Petitioner 10-24. Hawkins Alabama, 1302, 1306, (CA11 2003) (asserting argument). force argument. Section undermined introduced guise extensions existing Teague Lane, 489 288 (1989). extending always clear. fundamental enough factual permutations arise, necessity beyond doubt. 41 however. (rejecting lower defendant's inquiry); (citing 2d, 260, difficulties "`anticipat[e] question'"); 430-432 (describing past circumstance "unknowable police"). 42 "[o]nce inquiry." "to make guesses To sure, permissible impermissible indistinct cases. possible subsume latter formulation. Thus styled "reasonable interviews," perceive. (case below). 43 example, overborne," Lynumn Illinois, 372 528, 534 (1963), logically characteristics accused," Schneckloth Bustamonte, 218, 226 (1973). accused include education, intelligence, ibid., enforcement, Lynumn, 534. principled reason" 850, including 495-496 (noting arguably coercive "nothing rule"). reasons, 44 True, understand procedures unless prologue another string arrests. turns too mind "objective interrogation." Stansbury, conclusion. 46 Reversed. Notes: Kent Scheidegger Charles L. Hobson Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Briefs amici affirmance Juvenile Law Center et al. Marsha Levick Lourdes Rosado; National Association Defense Lawyers Jeffrey T. Green David Porter. 47 concurring. 48 join write separately express additional reason "custody" almost recognize majority. ascertain especially true here; 17½-year-olds vary widely reactions behave adults. difficulties, agree explicitly mention age. 49 GINSBURG join, dissenting. 50 my view, "in custody" (without warnings) put terms law's well-established standards: Would person" "position" "at leave"? (1995); 318, answer 322. And obvious here "no." 51 52 asks apply, arcane complex directives, ordinary sense. walk 2-hour interrogation? reader himself, herself, question: hears questioning. His arrival, separates parents. along, says not. 185-186. Another says, "`What suspect.'" 189. 53 room, away station's area. single begins him, process evidence participated connected saw suggests lying, adding "giving [him] truth" "tak[e] care [him]self." 102, 105. gives permission bathroom water theft, it, ends. 54 What request, solid confronted claims strong serious crime, thought "Well, anytime just out"? doubts, still think once recalls let remain questioning? he, controls situation? 55 pick middle believe wrong contrary, B 56 "fairminded custody"? Ante, 664. Consider "weigh finding" custody: 57 "The time." (emphasis True. request. But matter? came submitted voluntarily. 493-495 curiam); 1121, 1122-1123 118 (THOMAS, dissenting). involvement involuntary, voluntary, behavior part. 58 "Alvarado's `"not long."'" 664 (citation omitted Whatever began, nor, half hour so, considerations. 441 (1984). 59 (3) home." majority acknowledges, makes gauged during, after, ante, 663 325). 60 (4) "During [Officer] Alvarado's." characterized ringleader, killed. 102-103, 109. Her reinforced, diminished, fear witness, crime. 325. 61 (5) "[The not] pressur[e] [but instead] officer." highly "coercion." respect question, politeness, commendable, significantly help 62 (6) "Comstock break." circumstance, emphasizing movements, likely, will. 63 points house, handcuff locked cell, namely, out, hours. compel conclusion: C 64 youth? helps show unlikely ignore parents' request Schall Martin, 467 253, 265 (1984) (juveniles assumed subject parents"). 17-year-old than, 35-year-old, assertion authority outside child inside well. 65 prevent taking 17. 666-668. find nothing supports standard. pretend 35-year-old aging whose middle-aged children respect. Nor statistically "average working, married, white female high school degree. Dept. Commerce, Bureau Census, Statistical Abstract States: 2003 (123d ed.). 66 Rather, precise definition may, depending context, appropriately personal characteristics. negligence suits, "`under circumstances.'" answering enjoy "latitude" "allowance external facts, sometimes actor himself," physical disability, youth, advanced W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, & Owen, Prosser Keeton Torts 32, pp. 174-179 (5th ed. 1984); 179-181; Restatement (Third) 10, Comment b, 128-130 (Tent. Draft Mar. 28, 2001) (all American jurisdictions count person's childhood "relevant circumstance" determinations). allowance tort standard's recognized purpose: deterrence. purpose, adult blind see? O. Holmes, Common 85-89 (M. Howe 1963). 67 Miranda's concept avoid judicial mind, focus instead both situation. 323-325; 35. workable 68 special quality, shared characteristic generates commonsense conclusions perception. complicate shared, characteristics, (large) minority population possesses produce absurd results, instance point. am surprised limitation. 848, 850-851, 2002) below) (listing contrary). 69 explaining relevant. 669 (O'CONNOR, concurring) ("There `custody' inquiry"). "history enforcement," 668 bright red herring (an fact) (with presumption) appearance voluntary. 673. 70 said, establish that, even lock nonetheless thus 325-326; 440. 71 "gaug[ed]" "freedom movement," carefully interrogation," omitted), including, long (brief routine protracted?), 441; (voluntarily will?), (at public?), 438-439; (that suspect? arrest? argues strongly 72 sense, understanding basic purpose area, objective, Kaupp Texas, 626, 629-631 (2003) Unless prepared not, gentleman, versed practices, seems me mistake. Circuit's conclusions. Consequently, dissent.

Category: 0