Colorado Supreme Court People v. Figueroa-Ortega 12SA78

Decision here.

   Figueroa-Ortega worked as a cook at a restaurant, which was burglarized a few hours after he locked up and left.  The detective assigned to the case found surveillance video from a nearby church which revealed Figueroa-Ortega was the suspect.  Ten days after the initial report was filed (Figueroa-Ortega had been briefly interviewed during the initial report, but not as a suspect), the detective showed up at Figueroa-Ortega's apartment.  The detective showed up alone, in plain clothes, and made no show of force during the conversation.  They met in front of the apartment, and during the conversation the detective confronted Figueroa-Ortega with the evidence against him, told him that he was going to be charged with burglary, and pressured him for a confession.  Figueroa-Ortega denied any involvement in the burglary, admitting only that he did return to the restaurant to move his truck, and that he knew where the money was kept.  After interrogating him for a while, the detective thanked him for his time and left.

   Figueroa-Ortega was later charged with burglary.  At a hearing, he argued that his statements to the police were involuntary, were the fruit of an illegal seizure, and were made in response to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings.  The trial court held that the statements were voluntarily made, and that Figueroa-Ortega was not seized at all, so the statements were not the fruit of an illegal seizure.  Oddly, the trial court held that Figueroa-Ortega was subjected to custodial interrogation (even though he was not seized) because the detective's questioning was accusatory and confrontational.  Since it was uncontested that Figueroa-Ortega was never advised of Miranda, the trial court suppressed the statements.  The people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   Now, it is important to be aware that "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes is not the same thing as "in custody" for Miranda purposes.  They are two different standards, protecting different rights, guaranteed by different amendments.  A person may be seized when they are arrested or during an investigative detention.  The Miranda warnings are not designed to protect people from any conversation with the police, but to protect people from making involuntary incriminating statements in a police-dominated atmosphere, after their freedom has been restricted to the degree normally associated with a formal arrest.

   The Colorado Supreme Court observed that the line between formal arrest and lesser restrictions isn't always clear.  Things like pointing guns at people, or moving them to another location (even if that location is just the back of a police car) tend to suggest that a person is in custody for Miranda purposes.  Those aren't clear cut rules, it's still a question of the totality of the circumstances, but they are strongly indicative.  Anyway, there was none of that in the case at hand.  The Court didn't come right out and say that it was impossible to be in Miranda custody without being seized, but the Court seemed to find the whole idea counter-intuitive.  After all, the criteria for an arrest (under the Fourth Amendment) and custody (under Miranda) are pretty similar.  Since Figueroa-Ortega's freedom wasn't significantly interfered with at the time of his interrogation, it didn't matter that the detective told him he was going to be charged, or acted confrontationally, or mentioned the strength of the case against him.  He wasn't in custody, and therefore he wasn't entitled to Miranda warnings.  The suppression order was reversed.