conflix said:
Please consider this:
Det. Ortiz is questioning a person he asked to come to the station house to make a statement about a burglary the detective is investigating. During the questioning the person implicates himself as a participant in the burglary.
Question #1: Under routine circumstances, after implicating himself in the burglary, is the person being questioned by Det Ortiz free to leave the station house?
Question #2: If you agree he is not free to leave, then will you agree he is in custody from the moment he implicated himself?
Question #3: If you agree he is in custody at the moment he implicated himself in the burglary, will you agree Det Ortiz should stop his interview at that moment and inform the person he is being plcaed under arrest for burglary?
Would you also agree that after arresting the burglary suspect, Det Ortiz should read the suspect Miranda warnings and continue the questioning if the suspect agrees to continue answering questions?
Answer to question #1: often times, yes, they are free to leave. Police routinely go "long form" on a charge and do not arrest on site. Therefore, there is no point in addressing the rest of your questions.
Your original postings were not about custodial situations. You implied that Miranda is required WHENEVER the police interrogate a suspect and that suspect gives them incriminating responses. That is just not true. You made no distinction between custody and non-custody, which is what everyone was calling you on. If you made a mistake and didn't make it clear exactly which situation you were referring to, admit it and that is fine. But, as to your original statement, I requested that you cite a case for the exact statement you made.
And, once again, that statement was: "Once the person being questioned makes a statement that gives the police probable cause that he committed an offense, the person making the statement is no longer free to leave, therefore he is in custody."