The  familiar  Mirandawarnings  are  required  for  the  “in-custody  interrogation  of persons suspected or accused of crime.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966) (emphasis added).  And without those Miranda warnings, any statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief.  United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1108 (4th Cir. 1995).  But so long as a defendant is not “in custody,”then statements made during an interrogation remain admissible, even if the defendant were not given Miranda warnings.  The district court found that Leggette was not “in custody” when  he  made  incriminating  statements  at  the  park.    So  Miranda  warnings  were  not  required and the statements were admissible.  We agree and affirm

“An individual is in custody for Mirandapurposes when, under the totality of the circumstances, ‘a  suspect’s  freedom  of  action  is  curtailed  to  a  degree  associated  with  formal  arrest.’”    United  States  v.  Parker,  262  F.3d  415,  419  (4th  Cir.  2001)  (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984)).  This is an objective inquiry.  J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 270–71 (2011); seealso Parker, 262 F.3d at 419 (“Custody determinations  do  not  depend  on  the  subjective  views  of  either  the  interrogating  law  enforcement  officers  or  of  the  person  being  questioned,  but  depend  instead [on] the objective circumstances of the interrogation.”).   

A  court  asks  two  questions  when  determining  whether  a  suspect’s  “freedom  of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest.”  See Parker, 262 F.3d at 19.  “[T]he initial step,” Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 509 (2012), is to ask “whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.”  United States v. Pressley, 990 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States  v.  Hashime,  734  F.3d  278, 282–83 (4th  Cir.  2013)); Keohane,  516  U.S.  at  112(describing as “essential” to a custody determination the question of “would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave”).  But this is just the first step.  SeeMaryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 112 (2010) (“Our cases make  clear .  . . that  the  freedom-of-movement  test  identifies  only  a  necessary  and  not  a  sufficient condition for Mirandacustody.”).  If

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...