underage drinking /withdrawn/recharged

[LawGirl10]

I can definintely see it going either way, but I still think it is an issue that should be looked into. A traffic stop is very different from the facts described in this case.

What constitutes "custodial interrogation" within rule of Miranda v Arizona requiring that suspect be informed of his federal constitutional rights before custodial interrogation? The California Supreme Court stated that in determining whether or not a defendant is "in custody" for purposes of the Miranda warning requirement, the "ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest" .."the test, of course, is an objective one - how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his situation."...."Would such a person feel that he has been subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest? If so, he was 'in custody' and entitled to Miranda warning.

I guess the question would involve looking at exactly how the police handled the encounter.

 

[CdwJava]

True enough. But unless the police had everyone cuffed and ordered everyone onto their knees (or something similar and synonymous to "an arrest", I doubt that it will be seen as custodial for Miranda purposes. However, PA law may be different on the subject. I know that in CA we have never had a successful Miranda challenge that I am aware of when citing frat parties and similar events where everyone is told to hang tight and wait for an officer.

During a detention, we are permitted to make inquiry to determine if a crime has occurred. And if the officer walks up to a detained college student and asks, "How much did you have to drink?" and the student answers that they had any, then that can be used against them. They can, of course, refuse to answer and the officer can base it upon observations (odors, mannerisms, objective symptoms of intoxication or at least of consumption).

In fact, in any criminal investigation, an investigative inquiry can generally be made without invoking Miranda. At the scene of an assault, I may have a suspect seated on the couch at my direction, but I can still ask him his involvement in the incident. "Did you hit her?" It gets dicier once I've established that he did indeed commit the crime and that there was no legal justification for it. But, the initial statement is almost certainly (with some exceptions) going to be valid.

So, in this particular case, I would be very surprised if in this case the detention would be seen as rising to the level of custody for purposes of Miranda.

- Carl

 

[LawGirl10]

True enough. But unless the police had everyone cuffed and ordered everyone onto their knees (or something similar and synonymous to "an arrest", I doubt that it will be seen as custodial for Miranda purposes. However, PA law may be different on the subject. I know that in CA we have never had a successful Miranda challenge that I am aware of when citing frat parties and similar events where everyone is told to hang tight and wait for an officer.

During a detention, we are permitted to make inquiry to determine if a crime has occurred. And if the officer walks up to a detained college student and asks, "How much did you have to drink?" and the student answers that they had any, then that can be used against them. They can, of course, refuse to answer and the officer can base it upon observations (odors, mannerisms, objective symptoms of intoxication or at least of consumption).

In fact, in any criminal investigation, an investigative inquiry can generally be made without invoking Miranda. At the scene of an assault, I may have a suspect seated on the couch at my direction, but I can still ask him his involvement in the incident. "Did you hit her?" It gets dicier once I've established that he did indeed commit the crime and that there was no legal justification for it. But, the initial statement is almost certainly (with some exceptions) going to be valid.

So, in this particular case, I would be very surprised if in this case the detention would be seen as rising to the level of custody for purposes of Miranda.

- Carl

I agree with the concept of "investigative detentions," I was a police officer for seven years and did a lot of them before quitting to go to law school. However, under a lot of the case law, cuffs are not required for custody to take place for Miranda purposes. General investigative inquiry is one thing, direct questioning that would illicit and incriminating response that could be construed as a confession is something else entirely.

I guess, the issue that you cited: hang tight and wait for an officer, in that situation, I would definitely NOT say it was a detention. But my question is how far you can take that situation. For example, if a reasonable person, under those circumstances would not feel free to leave because of a coercive atmosphere, but only "general investigative questions" were asked, then I would say Miranda would not apply.

However, if the suspect was clearly told not to leave, or the circumstances of the police actions were such that a reasonable person did not feel free to leave, then I would say the situation was starting to advance toward custody. If those were the circumstances, the I would start looking at whether or not the questions are clearly directed at gathering evidence as to the guilt of the suspect (such as "have you consumed any alcohol" directed toward a person under 21, instead of "what were you doing here").

In my state, the other example that you cited about the battery suspect would have been construed as a Miranda situation if the suspect was clearly not allowed to leave (even if he had not formally been placed under arrest or even handcuffed). If custody were present, a general question about "what happened" or "what was the fight about" could be asked without having to Mirandize the suspect. However, if a direct question, such as "did you hit her" (like you stated) were asked, that would be seen as interrogation because it is an attempt to deliberatly illicit an incriminating response.

It is definitely interesting stuff. You gotta love the law.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, I had a long and eloquent response to your points, but my computer ate it when I tried to post.

In a nutshell, in my state, the purpose of the inquiry is not relevant to the issue of Miranda ... for the most part. Whether the questions are of a generally investigative nature or an outright inquiry of guilt, are not controlling. It is the matter of custody that would be.

If I have someone lawfully detained - be it on a traffic stop, at the scene of a fight, or at a possible theft, the person is not free to leave and can be arrested and charged if they attempt to leave. Absent other factors that would be the equivalent of a custodial arrest, I may still make inquiry and ask questions and lafully remain outside of the need for Miranda. Certainly, once the probable cause has been established and no lawful justification has been provided or forthcoming from the suspect, an argument regarding Miranda AFTER that admission can be made (as a reasonable person might expect that after such a confession they would not be free to go). But, I can lawfully ask even a directly incriminating question during that detention: "Did you hit your wife?" ... "Did you run that red light?" ... and Miranda would not necessarily apply.

Out here the question comes to the matter of custody and not so much the manner or content of the inquiry. And a detention of the type mentioned by our poster in PA would almost certainly be a detention and not a custodial issue for Miranda in CA. But, the status of Miranda in PA may be more along the lines of your state's than mine. Maybe Bravo8 can enlighten us.

By the way, what state ARE you in?

- Carl

 

[LawGirl10]

I think we are pretty much thinking the same thing with one difference. I am saying that is very possibly a custodial situation (once a reasonable person would not feel free to leave). And, as I said, that issue could go either way. I think that is really where we differ. Once a custodial situation occurs, if interrogation takes place (questions specifically directed at illicitating an incriminating response as opposed to general questions), then those responses could not be used in the Prosecution's case in chief.

Under the Innis case, "interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to its functional equivalent. The functional equivalent of express questioning is any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect....the Innis test is primarily objective: should the officer have realized that his words were reasonably likely to result in an incriminating response from the suspect." (Quoted from portions of the Innis case and a passage in Dressler, Understanding Criminal Procedure).

If my understanding is correct on that, then it wouldn't matter what state either one of us is in. The only differences that could ever take place on the issue of Miranda would be where the state gave a suspect MORE protection than the Constitution required.

 

[CdwJava]

But, since regional appelate courts DO modify some of the provisions of Miranda law in their districts, there are nuances. And state courts may also hold their state to a higher standard.

Here are some of the relevant California holdings:

The general rule is that you do not have to give Miranda warnings to someone you have detained (1) on reasonable suspicion, or (2) for a "cite and release" offense, or (3) for "inquiries"--especially about identity--made at the scene of a crime. (Berkemer (1984) 468 U.S. 420; Epperson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 115; Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679.)

Indeed, Miranda warnings are never necessary unless you have both "custody" and "interrogation”; and a person who is being "detained"--even though he is not free to leave--is not normally considered to be in "custody," which is defined as being under actual arrest or subject to equivalent physical restraints. (Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 322.)

On the other hand, if, at the time of questioning, the level of force you use on the suspect--regardless of whether such force is reasonable or unreasonable--is equal to what you would use during an actual arrest, then "custody" exists for Miranda purposes.

Each of these (and others) pound home the level of force issue and not the nature of the inquiry.

You should also realize that the amount of "probable cause" you have when dealing with a suspect has no bearing whatsoever on the question of when Miranda warnings are necessary, and that Miranda advisements are never necessary unless you are trying to obtain an admissible statement.

Additionally:

In order to obtain a statement that will be admissible at trial to prove guilt, Miranda advisements must be given only if the person about to be questioned is in "custody." (Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 197; Spears (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1, 23.) "Custody" exists for Miranda purposes when two requirements are met:

- the suspect must in fact have been formally arrested or had his freedom restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest--see Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318; Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Krantz (9th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 961, 963; Esqueda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1481; Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401; and

- the suspect must personally be aware of this lack of freedom, or reasonably believe that it exists. (Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Green (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126, 133-134; Mazza (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 836; Valdivia (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 657; Breault (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 125.)

In the words of the United States Supreme Court, "the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." (Stansbury (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 322, quoting from Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125; Joseph R. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 954, 960.)

These are CA and US case law decisions that outline our limitations.

So, it IS possible that different states and appelate districts might have differing "bright lines" on the definition of custody for purposes of Miranda. And while I am not certain about its status in PA, in my state detaining a large number of party goers while officers go around doing their thing would not likely be seen as a violation of Miranda regardless of the inquiry.

- Carl

 

[LawGirl10]

In your state, would the detained party-goers be free to leave? Custody under Miranda does not have to involve physical restraints or physical force. The equivalent of arrest can involve much less than either of those.

If they are free to leave, then no problem. But if they aren't, asking a person if they have consumed an alcoholic beverage (directed toward a person under 21) is not general questioning and not for identification purposes.

 

[CdwJava]

In your state, would the detained party-goers be free to leave? Custody under Miranda does not have to involve physical restraints or physical force. The equivalent of arrest can involve much less than either of those.

If they are free to leave, then no problem. But if they aren't, asking a person if they have consumed an alcoholic beverage (directed toward a person under 21) is not general questioning and not for identification purposes.

No, they wouldn't be free to leave (it's a lawful detention). But as long as the level of force or coersion is not the same as that which might be used for an arrest, it is not likely to be considered "custody" for purposes of Miranda.

And again, maybe the status of interpretations is different where you are, but out here the nature of the inquiry is not controlling so much as the level of force or coersion used in the detention, and if that "force" is similar to that which would be applied for an arrest.

By the definition you are forwarding, asking a driver if they ran the red light would be a violation of Miranda, and the USSC has ruled unequivocally that Miranda is not applicable in such detentions.

The key, once again, falls back on the issue of custody. If the custody exists to the point that it is the functional equivalent of an arrest, THEN the asking of a direct question might be seen as "interrogation" and thus a violation of Miranda.

Some more cases:

Sometimes there can be a problem about the meaning of "direct questioning" about the crime. Generally, courts will not find "interrogation" if your questions are merely preliminary, on-the-scene "inquiries" about a suspect's identity and/or reason for being present. (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420; Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679.)

"Not every question directed by an officer to a person in custody amounts to an 'interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings." “The police may speak to a suspect in custody as long as the speech would not reasonably be construed as calling for an incriminating response.” (Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 993, quoting from Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 985.) The standard is whether under all the circumstances involved in a given case--viewed objectively--the questions are "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." (Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 636-637.)

And I presume this is what you are driving at. But, since Miranda requires both "custody" and "interrogation", absent the level of restraing equivalent to an arrest, both elements of Miranda have not been met.

It comes back to "custody" and how it is defined for practical purposes in your state or district. In mine, a detention of a bunch of drinking kids at a frat or any other party is not likely to be seen as custody per Miranda ... provided there are no issues that might make the detention equivalent to a custodial arrest.

- Carl

 

[bjl1105]

Law Girl and Carl - Thankyou!

This is very interesting stuff! To set the record straight, the frat house was "charged by swarms of Police yelling, "Get down on your knees and stay down!". All the kids hit the floor and stayed there until the dust settled. They were told they could not leave without being seen by an officer. They were accompanied to the bathroom if they had to go. My daughter was held in an upstairs room (where she was when the entered the house) for four hours with whomever happened to be in the room at the time of the bust. Some kids tried to sneak out windows etc, but were caught and detained. No cuffs, no Mirandizing. We'll see. But your exchange of information is very informative. Thanks!

 

[LawGirl10]

The Supreme Court has treated traffic stops much differently than on the scene questioning in a private residence. I don't think this case can be resolved by looking at custody in traffic situations. I believe that depending on the circumstances of the case (and again, we really need more information from the OP), the in-home confrontation between the police and a suspect can very easily become the factual equivalent of custody (even without any of the physical conduct typically used in an explicit arrest).

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. That is what is great about the law. It has been nice talking to you.

 

[CdwJava]

This is very interesting stuff! To set the record straight, the frat house was "charged by swarms of Police yelling, "Get down on your knees and stay down!". All the kids hit the floor and stayed there until the dust settled. They were told they could not leave without being seen by an officer. They were accompanied to the bathroom if they had to go. My daughter was held in an upstairs room (where she was when the entered the house) for four hours with whomever happened to be in the room at the time of the bust. Some kids tried to sneak out windows etc, but were caught and detained. No cuffs, no Mirandizing. We'll see. But your exchange of information is very informative. Thanks!

The length of the detention may play a critical part in any Miranda question as will the method of detnetion - though I doubt that a short, "every one down" would - by itself - result in triggering custody.

In my experience, her statement is not likely to even be necessary for charges anyway. If the officer smelled alcohol on her, or alcohol was within her dominion and control, the element of "possession" is essentially completed - her consumption would be moot ... unless she was charged with a crime of consuming alcohol, though I suspect it's possession.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

The Supreme Court has treated traffic stops much differently than on the scene questioning in a private residence. I don't think this case can be resolved by looking at custody in traffic situations. I believe that depending on the circumstances of the case (and again, we really need more information from the OP), the in-home confrontation between the police and a suspect can very easily become the factual equivalent of custody (even without any of the physical conduct typically used in an explicit arrest).

I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. That is what is great about the law. It has been nice talking to you.

The reason I bring up the regional and state interpretation issues is that in my experience I have found that how a Constitutional issue (such as Miranda) is applied in one place may not be the status of the law in another. God forbid I take someone in "for questioning" in CA, but - just like on TV - the NYPD does just that. And how they get away with it, I can't say. But, obviously the status of the law where they are permits it under some circumstance.

The USSC has not fine-tuned Miranda to the nth degree. State and federal appellate courts have tended to do that. And a ruling by my state's Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not binding outside of my state and Circuit. So a narrower interpretation in your neck of the woods is certainly a possibility.

But having been involved in cases almost identical to the one described by the OP (but in CA), and hearing the arguments of Miranda argued and dismissed almost immediately, I can say that the status of the law out here appears to be slightly different than where you are.

Here custody is the key - not the inquiry. The inquiry becomes an issue only when the detention rises to the same or equivalent level of an arrest.

And, yes, it has been nice discussing the issue.

- Carl

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Just to put some water on this.....

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/12217116p-13081090c.html

 

[bjl1105]

The length of the detention may play a critical part in any Miranda question as will the method of detnetion - though I doubt that a short, "every one down" would - by itself - result in triggering custody.



In my experience, her statement is not likely to even be necessary for charges anyway. If the officer smelled alcohol on her, or alcohol was within her dominion and control, the element of "possession" is essentially completed - her consumption would be moot ... unless she was charged with a crime of consuming alcohol, though I suspect it's possession.

- Carl

Her On-View Arrest Citations reads as follows: "Defendant, being under 21 years of age, consumed one (1) 12 ounce can of Milwaukee's Best Ice Beer. Defendant is 18 years of age." Charge was consumption. I suspect if the officer smelled alcohol on her, he would have allowed her a breath test (which she requested at least 3 times). Does the four hours she was detained count as "custody" for Miranda?

 

[bjl1105]

Lawgirl please answer!

your posts are so informative! please answer