Court Opinion

ID: 9666978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:31:53.091795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.911949
License: Public Domain

DeCARLO, Judge
(dissenting).
From my review, the relevant facts surrounding the question did not demonstrate the kind of custodial interrogation denounced by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and based upon the following, I respectfully dissent:
Appellant was visiting in the apartment of Greg Yestadt at the time the search warrant was executed. Upon the arrival of four officers, all of the six occupants were told to take a seat and be still. The presence of appellant under these circumstances did not create “custody.” Wells v. United States, D.C.App., 281 A.2d 226 (1971).
At the time the yellow bag was found, the officers had already recovered marijuana, smoking paraphernalia, and heroin, and they had no idea as to the ownership of these items.
There is no evidence to indicate the investigation had focused on appellant to the exclusion of the others. The yellow bag contained two letters addressed to appellant and one to Margaret Conners. After inspecting the bag, Officer South asked appellant, “If the bag belonged to him.”
Nothing in the record establishes a police dominated atmosphere which would affect substantially the appellant’s will to resist or even compel him to speak out. On the contrary, appellant was among friends in an apartment which lacked the coercive setting or compelling influences of a station house.
The appellant’s affirmative answer to the officer’s inquiry was nothing more than general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime. It was part of the fact-finding process, and specifically excluded under the holding in Miranda, supra.
Five other people were present in the apartment, and I submit, the officer, after *526finding the letters was justified in determining the bag’s ownership. Tyler v. United States, D.C.App., 298 A.2d 224.
I distinguish Brown v. Beto, 5 Cir., 468 F.2d 1284 (1972), for these reasons; (1) the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued named Brown as possessor of the suspected contraband; (2) he was manager of the drug store; (3) he was the only one called to the rear while the search was being conducted and; (4) Brown was the only one present besides the officers when the heroin was found.
From the facts in the instant case, I am convinced the investigation did not focus on DeGruy until he acknowledged ownership of the bag, however, the investigation in Brown, supra, had centered on him from the moment the officers entered his drug store.