Court Opinion

ID: 9594846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:33:24.23676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:29.888133
License: Public Domain

*319Cooper, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. It is my view that the detective’s involvement in the initial interview at appellant’s home required the giving of Miranda warnings.
“Miranda warnings are not limited to station-house interrogations as long as there is some significant deprivation of an individual’s freedom of action. . . .” Aldridge v. State, 247 Ga. 142, 144 (2) (274 SE2d 525) (1981). The State contends that appellant was not “in custody” in her home during the initial interview and that it is not practical or legally necessary to extend Miranda to the initial inquiry at the scene of a child abuse referral. In Banther v. State, 182 Ga. App. 333 (355 SE2d 709) (1987), this court had the opportunity to rule in a case which, at first blush, appears to be on all fours with the instant case. In Banther, the defendant sought the exclusion of admissions made in an interview with a Department of Family & Children Services’ caseworker who was accompanied by a sheriff’s deputy. This court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the statements because the caseworker was not a law enforcement officer, and at the time of the interview, the defendant was at most a “potential criminal defendant” who had not been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom in any significant way. The court also rejected the defendant’s contention that the uniformed deputy’s presence required the conclusion that he was in custody because the deputy did not ask any questions, he was only present for the caseworker’s protection, and the defendant was free to leave at any time. However, whether a defendant is “free to go” is only a factor to be considered in determining whether Miranda warnings are required. Shy v. State, 234 Ga. 816, 819 (218 SE2d 599) (1975). In Shy v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court discussed several criteria to be considered in making the distinction between custodial and noncustodial interrogation: “ ‘probable cause to arrest, subjective intent of the police, subjective belief of the defendant, and focus of the investigation.’ [Cit.] These all point to attempts by the police to gather incriminating information. [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 821. When an officer initially arrives at the scene of a crime, he “may make a threshold inquiry to ascertain if there were any current danger to himself or to others present at the scene. [Cit.] So long as the interrogation is not aimed at obtaining information to establish a suspect’s guilt but is instead aimed at determining the nature of the situation upon the arrival of the policeman on the scene, some initial inquiry may, under the circumstances, be permissible before Miranda warnings are given.” Aldridge, supra at 144-145 (2).
In Banther, supra, it was significant that the caseworker was not a law enforcement officer; that the deputy sheriff did not participate in the questioning; and that the deputy merely accompanied the *320caseworker to insure her safety. In addition, the purpose of the interview was to determine whether the defendant’s stepdaughter should be placed in foster care. However, in the instant case, the record demonstrates that prior to the interview, appellant- was a target in the investigation. The detective and Ms. Harris had received information that appellant was allegedly responsible for the victim’s broken leg; that appellant was a “very angry person”; and that all the children in her care allegedly had been mistreated and were at risk. Therefore, the purpose of the interview was specifically to obtain information from appellant regarding her involvement in the victim’s broken leg. The record also reveals that although appellant allowed the detective and Ms. Harris to enter her home, she was nervous and upset. The investigators had to quell appellant’s fears to encourage her to talk about the victim’s broken leg. Moreover, the interview was not conducted by Ms. Harris. Instead, the detective questioned appellant specifically about the victim’s broken leg and promptly arrested her based on her answers. Thus, it appears that the “focus of the interview” was not solely to ascertain whether there was any continuing danger to the victim, the other children, Ms. Harris or the detective but was “ ‘aimed at obtaining information to establish [appellant’s] guilt.’ [Cit.]” State v. Overby, 249 Ga. 341, 343 (2) (290 SE2d 464) (1982). Although we have recently held that “[i]t was not incumbent upon the caseworker to advise defendant of his Miranda rights because she was not a law enforcement officer” (Rucker v. State, 203 Ga. App. 358 (2) (416 SE2d 871) (1992)), because the detective conducted the interview of appellant, Miranda warnings should have been given. Accordingly, appellant’s written statement, given after her unlawful arrest, should have been suppressed.
Decided March 19, 1993 —
Reconsideration denied April 1, 1993
J. M. Raffauf, Alden W. Snead, for appellant.
David McDade, District Attorney, Lois W. Gerstenberger, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.