Often, a person who has been detained (Terry stop, traffic stop) is “in custody ” for Miranda purposes before a formal arrest occurs. That is important because the procedural safeguards adopted by Miranda become necessary once a defendant is taken into custody.
The Miranda Safeguards
Most people know that the Fifth Amendment gives a person a privilege not to answer official questions when the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984). Even more people are aware that the Miranda warnings are required when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subject to questioning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In other words, Miranda warnings must be issued by officers prior to questioning where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ” in custody ” Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994). The issue that is hard to understand in a particular case is when a person is ” in custody.” That issue should not be overlooked in a case where a suspect responded to questions from officers prior to arrest and without being Mirandized. If the person was in custody at the time the statements were made, they are subject to exclusion. Further, if the person is later Mirandized and questioned further, his pre- and post- Miranda statements might be subject to exclusion. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
In Custody
The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views harbored by either the officers or the person being questioned. Stansbury. the safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect’s freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. If a motorist who is detained pursuant to a traffic stop is thereafter subject to treatment that renders him in custody for practical purposes, he will be entitled to the full panoply of protections required by Miranda. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
If a person is detained by the police, he would be nuts to believe he was free to walk away or otherwise ignore them. However, the reasonableness of that belief does not mean the person is in custody for Miranda purposes. Miranda “custody ” is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought, generally, to present a serious danger of coercion. The first question to ask is whether a reasonable person faced with similar circumstances would have felt he was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. But the ” freedom of movement ” test identifies only a necessary and not sufficient condition for Miranda custody. Additionally, the relevant environment must present the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda. United States v. Howard, 6th Cir. 815 Fed. Appx. 69 (Mem).
Factors to be Considered
Several cases have identified factors to be considered in determining whether the test for Miranda custody has been met. Some of the factors are as follows: Location of the questioning (at home as opposed to the back of a police car or on a dark side street late at night ); did the police already suspect the person of a crime; was the person’s freedom to leave restricted in any way (almost always, yes); was the person patted down or handcuffed ; were threats made during questioning; was the person physically intimidated during questioning (several armed officers, close proximity to person); did the police verbally dominate the interrogation (repeated questioning in an accusatory manner);were there any neutral parties present during the questioning; and, did the police engage in any coercive action to get the person to make a statement . See State v. Jirac, 2d Dist. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-8187.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has decided the issue of Miranda custody in connection with traffic stops under very specific factual circumstances. See State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St. 3d 519 (2006) and Cleveland v. Oles, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1 (2017). The narrowness of those holdings does not limit a practitioner from exploring the issue in a case arising out of a traffic stop where questioning (prior to Miranda warnings) occurs before a formal arrest and the statements that he made in response to questions posed later after he was Mirandized may all be subject to exclusion.