Colorado Supreme Court People v. Barraza 12SA284

Decision here.

   Some guy (one of Barraza's friends, apparently) was arrested in Thornton for vehicular trespass.  The victims in that case called the police again, complaining that they were being harassed because of that arrest. 

   According to the victims, someone knocked on the door and identified themselves as the police.  When they answered, they were instead confronted with some guy demanding to know who called the police, saying that someone would pay, and saying that he would be back.  Later, he came back and knocked again.  This time they refused to answer the door. 

   The victims thought they had a name for the suspect (Barraza had left a note when he crashed into their car a few months ago).  The responding officer made a photo lineup in his car, and everyone in the apartment separately identified Barraza as the one making the threats.  The lineup was later suppressed by the trial court, but this decision doesn't say why.

   Barraza's last known address was in Westminster, so two Thornton officers and two Westminster officers went there.  Barraza's brother let them into the house, and then the investigating officer asked to talk to Barraza in the front yard.  He led him away from the others and asked him about the case in the driveway.  Barraza admitted to going over to the victim's house to ask who called the police, but denied making any threats.  Barraza was arrested and taken to the police station where he waived Miranda and then made pretty much the same statement.

   The trial court ruled that because there were four officers present and Barraza was interviewed away from his family (in the driveway), he was not free to leave and therefore should have been read Miranda warnings.  The trial court suppressed his first statement because they were made without Miranda warnings, and suppressed his second statement as fruit of the poisonous tree.  The court did note that many of the traditional indications of custody (like handcuffs, use of force, intimidating tone, being told he was under arrest, etc..) were absent in this case, but was really hung up on the fact that four officers were present and that Barraza wasn't free to go.

   The prosecution appealed, arguing that the trial court incorrectly applied fourth amendment reasoning (whether or not someone is free to go) to a fifth amendment question (whether or not someone is in custody).  The Colorado Supreme Court again reiterated that the custody test for Miranda purposes is whether someone's freedom has been restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest.  Voluntarily walking to the driveway to talk to a cop doesn't meet that standard doesn't meet that standard, even if there are four cops on scene.  That means Barraza was not in custody at that point, so Miranda did not apply.  That also means that the later statement was not fruit of the poisonous tree.  The suppression of Barraza's statements was reversed, and this case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.