Criminal-Procedure.com
Custody
Location of questioning
As stated in the Introduction, when determining whether a suspect was in custody at the time of his confession, one must determine whether a reasonable person would believe they were in custody. Although the location of the questioning is a factor in this determination, it is not conclusive of the nature of the questioning.
In Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977), a police officer left a note at a suspect's residence, asking the suspect to call the officer to "discuss something." After the suspect contacted the officer, they met at a time chosen by the suspect, where the suspect was told he was not under arrest. The suspect then answered the officer's questions, without having been read his Miranda rights, before leaving of his own volition. The United States Supreme Court held:
Such a noncustodial situation is not converted to one in which Miranda applies simply because a reviewing court concludes that, even in the absence of any formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement, the questioning took place in a "coercive environment." Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him "in custody."
Conversely, if an interrogation were to take place within a suspect's home . . .
|
||||||||||
About Criminal-Procedure.com
|
Terms & conditions
| Contact
us
Page last updated: 2/17/2007
© 2007 Criminal-Procedure.com