<personal rant, not really part of the summary>
Ah, Miranda. How I hate thee.
Actually, that's not fair. My problem with Miranda isn't Miranda. My problem with Miranda is that most cops are so confused about it... they really have no idea when they need to read someone their rights and when they don't. It's not that it's all that tricky, it's that for some reason a lot of cops are never really taught the right answer. The confusing thing is that most cops are used to thinking about arrests in terms of the Fourth Amendment. It's understandable... after all, Miranda sets forth the rules for when we can talk to people who are under arrests, and arrests are governed by the Fourth Amendment. But an understandable mistake is still a mistake.
For fourth amendment purposes, someone is "seized" (which can mean either arrested or detained) if a reasonable person in their position would not feel like they were free to leave (or otherwise terminate the encounter with the police). Because of this, you get a lot of people who think they need to be read their rights any time they aren't free to leave. The cops know this isn't true, but most of them don't know why (and since they don't know why, they end up applying Miranda incorrectly themselves). Here's why: Miranda is a rule which the courts use to protect people's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is free to go, the important question is whether or not a reasonable person in their circumstances would perceive that their freedom had been interfered with to the degree associated with a formal arrest. I know that's a mouthful, but since the courts like to be as precise and all-encompassing as possible we end up with a lot of rules that you couldn't say five times fast. It doesn't actually matter whether or not someone is actually under arrest, it's just if a normal person in their shoes would think they were going to jail.
But I'm supposed to be summarizing case law here, not going off on my own tangent. So I'll get to it.
<end of personal rant>
An anonymous complainant in Aurora, Colorado reported that there was drug dealing afoot in an apartment complex. The RP described at least two cars involved in a drug transaction, and said that one apartment in particular was the source of the problem. Officers arrived, and stopped the two described cars as they were leaving. The drivers of each of the cars admitted to buying weed from some guy named Dimitry who was in the apartment which the RP had pointed her finger at. One of them also described Dimitry's car.
Police saw Dimitry's car leaving the apartment complex. Sgt. Redfearn pulled the car over a couple blocks away for a window tint violation. The driver (who was not Dimitry) wasn't able to produce license, registration, or insurance. Sgt. Redfearn asked if someone in the car had a license, and the passenger (Dimitry Pleshakov) produced his. When another passenger stuffed something under the seat in the back of the car, Redfearn asked everyone to get out of the car. Once they did, they were patted down for weapons and then directed to sit down on the curb. Sgt. Redfearn pulled Dimitry aside to discuss the drug dealing with him. Dimitry admitted to having weed in the apartment, but not to selling it.
Sgt. Redfearn asked for consent to search the apartment, telling Dimitry that he thought he had enough evidence to get a warrant but it would be easier for everyone if Dimitry just gave consent. He also suggested that if there was just a little bit of weed, Dimitry would probably just get a ticket. Dimitry gave consent, signing a written consent to search form (after Sgt. Redfearn told him he could refuse and wrote "you have the right to refuse" on the form itself). Dimitry wanted to be present for the search, and so he accompanied officers as they searched his apartment. He showed them where he kept his gun (which they seized) and his weed (which someone else had already stolen). He was subsequently arrested for distribution of a controlled substance, possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and for possession of an Oxycontin pill.
The trial court suppressed all the evidence, finding that even though Dimitry's consent and incriminating statements were voluntary, he should have been read the Miranda warnings first because he was being detained (and no longer just for traffic). The evidence was held to be fruit of the poisonous tree, since Dimitry's consent was given during this un-Mirandized interrogation. The prosecution filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the court had incorrectly applied Fourth Amendement reasoning to Miranda. So it isn't just cops who get confused about this one. :)
Anyway, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Dimitry's freedom had not been restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest, and therefore he was not subjected to custodial interrogation. That meant that there was no need to give Dimitry Miranda warnings. The trial court's order suppressing the evidence was reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment