Criminal Procedure – Miranda warnings — custody

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Criminal Procedure – Miranda warnings — custody

Where a suspect was not in custody when he asked for an attorney, Miranda does not bar further interrogation by the officers.

“Lonkoski came to the sheriff’s department without being asked and voluntarily submitted to questioning by law enforcement officers. Although he was questioned in a small room within a jail by two officers with the door closed, the circuit court found that it was a typical interrogation setting locked to ingress by individuals but not for egress; he was never restrained in any way; and the door was opened more than once by people entering or exiting. In fact, on one occasion when the officers left the room, one of the officers asked Lonkoski whether he preferred the door to the interrogation room to be open or shut. Furthermore, Lonkoski was told that he was not under arrest and that the officers were not accusing him. In the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Lonkoski’s position at the time he stated he wanted an attorney would believe that he or she was ‘free to terminate the interview and leave the scene.’ We decline to adopt Lonkoski’s argument that Miranda applies when custody is ‘imminent.’ Accordingly, although our analysis differs from that of the court of appeals, we affirm its decision.”

Affirmed.

2010AP2809-CR State v. Lonkoski

Crooks, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hinkel, Andrew, Madison; For Respondent: Michlig, Steven M., Rhinelander; Weinstein, Warren D., Madison