Miranda Warnings – Motion to Suppress

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Brian L. Halverson

Case No.: 2018AP858-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Miranda Warnings – Motion to Suppress

The State of Wisconsin appeals both an order granting Brian Halverson’s motion to suppress evidence and an order denying its motion for reconsideration. Halverson argues that his admission to a crime made during a telephone call with a police officer while Halverson was incarcerated should be suppressed because the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings violated his constitutional rights. Halverson relies upon a case from our supreme court, State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999), which held that an incarcerated person is per se in custody for purposes of Miranda. The State, however, contends that a subsequent United States Supreme Court case, Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), effectively overruled Armstrong’s per se custody rule.

We hold that Howes effectively overruled Armstrong. Armstrong relied solely upon federal case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it created the per se custody rule; it did not rely on any unique rights or protections afforded under the Wisconsin Constitution. Howes now teaches that the cases upon which Armstrong relied do not establish that a person who is incarcerated is always in custody for purposes of Miranda when he or she is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct that occurred outside of the prison. Instead, custody is determined by analyzing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation in question.

We also reject Halverson’s invitation to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution—specifically, article I, section 8—as “more fully protect[ing] the right against compelled self-incrimination” than the rights afforded to individuals under the Fifth Amendment, so as to retain Armstrong’s per se custody rule as a matter of state constitutional law. Consequently, we conclude the circuit court erred by applying Armstrong’s per se custody rule instead of the totality-of-the circumstances analysis outlined in Howes.

Assessing the totality of the circumstances surrounding Halverson’s telephone interrogation, we conclude he was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Accordingly, the officer’s failure to provide Halverson with Miranda warnings did not violate Halverson’s constitutional rights. We therefore reverse the circuit court’s orders granting Halverson’s motion to suppress and denying the State’s motion for reconsideration, and we remand with directions to deny Halverson’s suppression motion.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.