From yesterday's U.S. v. Craighead, a Ninth Circuit decision written by Judge Bybee:
The home occupies a special place in the pantheon of constitutional rights. Under the First Amendment, the “State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565 (1969). The Second Amendment prohibits a federal “ban on handgun possession in the home.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, ___ (2008). The Third Amendment forbids quartering soldiers “in any house” in time of peace “without the consent of the Owner.” U.S. CONST. amend. III. The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches or seizures in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Id. amend. IV. The question presented in this case is one of first impression in our court: under what circumstances under the Fifth Amendment does an interrogation by law enforcement officers in the suspect’s own home turn the home into such a police-dominated atmosphere that the interrogation becomes custodial in nature and requires Miranda warnings?
The opinion acknowledges that "An interrogation conducted within the suspect’s home is not per se custodial." (There's a Supreme Court precedent on that.) "On the contrary, courts have generally been much less likely to find that an interrogation in the suspect’s home was custodial in nature. The element of compulsion that concerned the Court in Miranda is less likely to be present where the suspect is in familiar surroundings." But the court concludes that this particular interrogation was custodial, partly because the interrogation took place in the home, while it was being searched:
presents an issue on which our court thus far has said little. The usual inquiry into whether the suspect reasonably believed he could “leave” the interrogation [part of the test for whether Miranda warnings are required -EV] does not quite capture the uniqueness of an interrogation conducted within the suspect’s home. “Home,” said Robert Frost, “is the place where, when you go there, they have to take you in.” If a reasonable person is interrogated inside his own home and is told he is “free to leave,” where will he go? The library? The police station? He is already in the most constitutionally protected place on earth. To be “free” to leave is a hollow right if the one place the suspect cannot go is his own home. Similarly, a reasonable person interrogated inside his own home may have a different understanding of whether he is truly free “to terminate the interrogation” if his home is crawling with law enforcement agents conducting a warrant-approved search. He may not feel that he can successfully terminate the interrogation if he knows that he cannot empty his home of his interrogators until they have completed their search. We must, therefore, consider how to apply the traditional Miranda inquiry to an in-home interrogation.
The court goes through a detailed and very interesting analysis, though on balance I'm (at least tentatively) unpersuaded that this suspect was indeed in custody for Miranda purposes, or that the fact that the interrogation was in the person's home -- and that leaving the scene of the interrogation means leaving one's home -- should count in favor of Miranda warnings' being required.
I don't know enough about Miranda (I used to, but I don't now) to be able to comment competently about the issue of whether this was actually a Miranda violation.
But I would argue that if the issue is whether the fact that the interrogation is at home "should count in favor of Miranda warnings", the answer should be yes. Not that you can never have a noncustodial interrogation at home-- if the police just knock on your door and say "can we ask you a few questions", that doesn't strike me as custodial. But Bybee is surely right (words I never thought I would type) that an average person would feel less free to leave, under certain circumstances, if he or she is being interrogated at home rather than at another location. So it's one factor, though not a controlling one.
What's "on balance" when the police have taken over your home, are going through your personal possessions, and seek to question you? I doubt a UCLA law professor, even one equipped with a well-developed balancing capability, would stand up very well in these circumstances, much less someone who has no legal training.
The most significant fact weighing against custodial interrogation is the specific statement by the agent that he was not under arrest, that anything he said was voluntary, and that he was not going to be arrested that day regardless of what he said. He was not in fact arrested, was never handcuffed (which does happen a lot during search warrant executions), and was not removed from the house. On the other hand, the isolation of the suspect in a storeroom with a law enforcement officer physically blocking the closed door suggests a reasonable person might well not believe he was free to leave. Basically, the 9th Circuit panel weighed the facts and came down on the side of finding custodial interrogation. Another panel, especially in another Circuit, might well come down the opposite way.
I understand the court's suggestion that the suspect does not feel "free to go," but isn't the more precise question whether the suspect feels free to terminate the interrogation? I think being interrogated inside one's home, especially when the primary purpose is to execute a search warrant, not to interrogate the suspect, is less coercive than being dragged downtown.
But I can see this is an interesting case.
On the other hand, if they applied for a search warrant but didn't actually search or seize any items, that would be fairly suspect.
Your liberty is restrained by police power, therefore you are in custody.
What is more relevant is that 'Miranda rights' do not exist, anywhere. You have these rights always, everywhere. Miranda is a question of when the police have to REMIND you of what rights you ALREADY HAVE. You do not commence your posession of these rights upon the reading ot the warning, you already had them, from the moment you were born.
In such a situation, ANY custodial / interrogation situation, the only intelligent response is 'I want a lawyer', followed by silence. Repeat as needed. You do not need to be reminded of your rights in order for them to take effect.
And if you are being interrogated / searched, the police are NOT repeat NOT there to help you ! They are there to find a reason to ARREST AND CHARGE you ! To co-operate with ANY interrogation, under ANY circumstance, is masochistic at the very least. You are NOT going to help yourself, they are NOT there to help you ( no matter what they say ), you are only going to dig your own hole.
I am a layman. I know that the basis of the law is stare decisis. It's well and fine to debate these points. It's essential.
However, the law must be practical. The invasion of a home is in and of itself an intimidating and alarming situation. For the unsophisticated, and by that I mean to include those with advanced degrees outside of J.D., it is offputting, discombobulating at minimum. I think that Miranda should be mandatory whenever a warranted intrusion occurs.
I have no illusions about the goodness of man. I know that the Constable is usually right. However, each week we see examples of raids gone wrong.
I would dearly like to see discussions of this kind focus more on justice than citations.
Regards,
Roy
BUT, of course, there's a distinction between feeling they are not free to leave A) because they believe the cops will use force to stop them if they try to leave and B) because they believe that leaving will make them look guilty or deprive them of their chance to try and persuade the cops they have the wrong guy or whatever. Many people, when accused of something, naturally feel that they must try to defend themselves immediately against the accusation by explaining their side of things and endeavoring to frame the issue in a light more favorable to themselves, they just can't bring themselves to leave the accusation hanging... which is what cops thrive upon to get confessions.
Well, i for one would prefer to see discussions of his kind focus more on citations than justice. (If only because I have no idea what is the "just" result when it comes to a case like this.)
This quip may have the virtue of being scholarly, but often contentious issues in adjudication are resolved by reference to moral and political philosophy and common-sense, practical reasoning rooted in social experience. Certainly, Bybee's reference to the centrality of the home to constitutional protection of individual rights is supported by the text of the Constitution; arguably it is more persuasive than divining a general right to privacy from the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments by positing penumbras that no one but you can discern. (It is surely more persuasive to me.) The moral and politico-philosophical justifications here involve limiting police power and respecting individual dignity and the common-sense rooted in social experience is simply that an intrusive force rummaging through your personal effects in your own home may be so coercive that a citizen foolishly disregards his rights. It is not so far-fetched to assert that such a coercive environment renders one in custody. One could argue that the level of coercion in the environment plays a significant role in whether a suspect is in custody is both common sense and consistent with precedent in this area of constitutional law, as well as also just because it sides with the coerced individual rather than with the coercive agents of the state.
I fully agree with Paul Milligan that if you are in custody and the nice, friendly police officer reads you Miranda rights, the proper response, 100% of the time, is "I want to talk to a lawyer first."
The fourth and fifth amendments are not worth the paper they are written on, any more.
I'm just curious, given the facts of this case, how do you think that actually would have played out? Remember that there were numerous agents of at least three law enforcement agencies in his house at the time. Do you think everyone would have seen him unescorted and assumed "well, I guess that he must be free to go"?