AJ 103 CH 15 pg. 312-328

Actual Custody

Arrest where the officer announces to the arrestee that “they’re under arrest.”

Mirandizing real criminals makes them (blank)

less likely to talk.

Mirandizing

Reading a detainee their Miranda rights.

When officers have a suspect in custody, they can only interrogate them for (blank)

the crime they were arrested for. If they want to ask about a bank robbery when they were arrested for a DUI, they’d need a waiver.

If a suspect is released under any circumstance, (blank)

they are no longer in custody.

A de facto custody is when officers have given enough restrictions to a suspect, so much so that (blank)

they should be read their Miranda rights.

In determining if a suspect was in de facto custody, they use the reasonable person test, which has the following requirements:

1. The observations are objective and unbiased, based on pure fact.

2. The observations are made from the perspective of an innocent person.

Because the reasonable person test only involves the perspective of this “third person,” (blank)

the subjective feelings of the officer are irrelevant. (e.g. the officer thought the suspect was guilty)

A suspect is not in custody merely because (blank)

he knew or reasonably believed that he was not free to walk away or move about.

Questioning Minors

When questioning minors under the age of 16, it is usually advisable to tell them that they are free to leave. Minors are much more likely to submit to the authority of officers, as they feel that they are required to, even when they’re not.

Two circumstances that automatically put suspects into custody:

1. Pointing a gun at them

2. Telling them that you’re taking them back to the station for questioning.

Determining whether or not someone is in custody (blank)

depends on the totality of the circumstances.

When interrogating unarrested suspects in a police station, officers must (blank)

make an effort to reduce their coerciveness.

In cases of voluntary appearance in a police station, (blank)

suspects must have consented voluntarily to give their statements and be questioned.

Beheler Admonition

Informing unarrested persons that they are free to leave before an interview.

Four caveats to the Beheler Admonition

1. They are worthless if it appeared that, despite what the officers said, the suspect was not free to leave.

2. They no longer apply if the suspect gives probable cause to arrest in their confession

3. If the interview becomes lengthy, it can become necessary to issue multiple Beheler Admonitions

4. It is best to tell the suspect that he is free to leave, as opposed to saying he is not under arrest.

The fact that the suspect was questioned in an

interview room is a circumstance that is relevant in determining whether he was in custody, as interview rooms are considered inherently coercive environments.

Tone

Indicates whether an interview is simply a questioning or bordering on an arrest. Informative and calm tones indicated questioning; a harsher, aggressive tone indicates that the officers were likely going to arrest the suspect.

The length of an interview is irrelevant unless (blank)

its duration or intensity was unnecessary..

Although detainees are aware that they are not free to leave or move about, they are not (blank)

in custody for Miranda purposes if the restraint on their freedom was apparently temporary and “comparatively nonthreatening.”

Handcuffs usually indicate (blank), and thus warrant reading of (blank)

• an arrest

• Miranda rights

Four cases where handcuffs do not indicate arrest:

• Suspect was informed that they weren’t under arrest

• The suspect knew why they were being handcuffed; the handcuffs were explained

• The detainee was not handcuffed for a long time

• Nothing would’ve indicated that the person was under arrest

A detainee who is being held at gunpoint is in custody unless:

• Officer was warranted in pulling their firearm

• The weapon was reholstered before they questioned the detainee

• There were no other circumstances that reasonably indicated that the detainee was under arrest.

Commanding a person to keep their hands visible does (blank)

not mean that the person is in custody.

The length of a detention is (blank)

rarely relevant as most are short, and do not put the suspect in custody.

Pat searches (blank)

do not mean that a person is in custody.

Number of officers present during (blank)

questioning could constitute the suspect being in custody, as there are usually more officers present when a suspect is in custody.

Saying “you’re free to leave”

eliminates any coerciveness.

The least coercive setting in which officers will question a suspect is (blank)

the suspect’s home.

Questioning that occurs in the suspect’s home will be deemed custodial if (blank)

the officers handcuffed the suspect or otherwise conducted themselves not as visitors seeking information but as occupiers of the premises.

A suspect’s home is especially likely to be deemed custodial if officers had made a non-consensual entry to (blank)

execute a search warrant or conduct a parole or probation search. This is mainly because the officers will usually have taken complete control of the home—and everyone in it.

Inmates will be deemed in custody only if they were (blank)

subjected to pressures and restrictions on their freedom above and beyond those which are inherent in the prison.

People who are (blank) in jail have the same rights as prisoners when it comes to whether or not they are in custody.

time-serving.

If a person in jail has only been incarcerated for a short period of time, (blank). If they were incarcerated for a long time, they are not (blank)

• they are in custody

• they are not in custody

Questioning that occurs in the following places is not inherently coercive and is therefore not apt to render an interview custodial:

public places, hospitals, ambulances, probation and parole offices, the suspect’s workplace.

As for courtrooms, a defendant or witness who is questioned in open court, (blank)

they are not in custody for Miranda purposes even if they were incarcerated at the time.

Even if a suspect was in custody, a Miranda waiver is not required unless (blank)

officers planned to immediately “interrogate” him.

Two types of interrogation:

1. Direct: directly asking for information

2. Indirect: asking questions that may incite an incriminating response

What constitutes an indirect interrogation?

• If it was reasonably likely that the question would generate an incriminating response

• There was a link between the question and the crime

• The officer’s intent was to generate an incriminate response

• Utilizing interrogation tactics

• Exploiting vulnerabilities

Accusing a suspect of a crime is always an (blank) because of the likelihood he will respond by saying something incriminating

interrogation

In contrast to accusations, merely informing the suspect of the evidence of his guilt will (blank)

not constitute interrogation if it was done in a brief, factual, and dispassionate manner.

Interrogation may, however, result if (blank)

the officer present evidence to the suspect in a goading, provocative, or accusatorial manner.

Statements of fact (blank)

do not constitute a detention.

A “neutral” question is an inquiry that plainly (blank)

did not call for information about the crime under investigation.

Examples of neutral questions:

• Booking questions

• Seeking consent to search

• Questioning a witness (they won’t have an incriminating response)