Criminal Procedure – Miranda warnings – custody

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure – Miranda warnings – custody

Where a suspect was not permitted to freely move about his parents’ home, he was in custody, and Miranda warnings were required.

“As for the setting, Borostowski was in familiar surroundings, in his sister’s bedroom, in his parents’ home. That fact generally weighs in favor of finding that he was not in custody. But he was forcefully separated from family members, and although he was in his own home, he was not allowed to move through the house without one or more agents at his side, and was handcuffed when he was first led back into the house. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 325-27, 330 (1969) (finding custody where four officers entered the suspect’s bedroom and behaved as though he was ‘not free to go where he pleased but was under arrest’ even though they did not actually handcuff or physically subdue the suspect, and even though he was in familiar surroundings and the interrogation was not prolonged); Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 641-42 (7th Cir. 1996) (more important than the familiarity of the surroundings where the suspect was being held is the degree to which the police dominated the scene). See also Craighead, 539 F.3d at 1085 (when law enforcement agents restrain the ability of a suspect to move with physical restraints or through threats or intimidation, a suspect may reasonably feel he is subject to police domination within his own home and thus not free to leave or terminate the interrogation); Mittel-Carey, 493 F.3d at 40 (where agents told the defendant where to sit within his own home, physically separated him from his girlfriend, escorted him on the three occasions when he was permitted to move, including during a trip to the bathroom, the level of physical control the agents exercised over the defendant weighed heavily in favor of finding custody, despite the fact that the control was exercised inside defendant’s home).”

Reversed in part, and Affirmed in part.

13-3811 U.S. v. Borostowski

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Shadid, J., Rovner, J.

Full Text