9th Circuit finds defendant in custody for Miranda while in his home
It appears that the Nevada Supreme Court will not issue any published opinions today. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, issued an interesting opinion which could impact Nevada cases. In United States v. Craighead, the Circuit reversed a district court finding that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when he was interrogated without Miranda warnings based upon a finding that the interrogation in the defendant's home was not custodial.
The Circuit finds that the interrogation was custodial, even though it took place in the defendant's own home, based on these facts: Eight law enforcement officers went to the house, all were armed, some of them unholstered their firearms in the defendant's presence during a search and the FBI agents wore flack jackets. An officer testified during the suppression hearing that she told the defendant he was not under arrest, any statement he made would be voluntary, he would not be arrested that day regardless of what information he provided, and he was free to leave. Two of the officers then directed the defendant to a storage room so they could have a private conversation. The defendant was not handcuffed. A detective leaned against the wall near the exit and the door was shut. A military sergeant who was present was not allowed into the storage room because he was non-law enforcement and therefore would never be permitted to be present for an FBI interview. The interview lasted 20 to 30 minutes. The FBI agent who conducted the interview could not remember whether she told the defendant that he was free to leave once they were inside the storage room, though it was generally her practice to do so. The agent did not make any threats or promises or use any force to induce the defendant to speak.
The defendant testified that he felt he was not free to leave because he would have either had to move a detective or ask him to move and because the "prevailing mood of the morning" left him with the impression that he was not free to leave. He also believed that even if the FBI agent would have permitted him to leave, members of two other law enforcement agencies that were present would not. He was unsuare if he needed permission from all three agencies to leave. He was unaware during the interview that a military sergeant had been invited to the defendant's house to provide him with emotional support. He assumed the sergeant was required to be there by an Air Force regulation. He was not arrested.
The Circuit determines that under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have felt deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way, such that he would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation. An interrogation in the suspect's home may be found to be custodial under certain circumstances. Those circumstances existed in this case.