Age should be taken into account in reasonable person determination can be accounted for w/o damaging subjective nature of analysis – Illinois v. Perkins (1990) PRISON INMATE – Placing agent w/ inmate doesn’t require Miranda warnings police dominated atmosphere and compulsion Howes v. Fields (2012) Interviewed about something not in jail for; told he could leave No Miranda Warnings req’d b/c not inherently coercive (could leave) Where is Custody triggered? (Hypo) Consensual encounter NO – Traffic Stop NO – Invitation to station, 30min interview, told not under arrest NO – Invitation, 30min, nothing about arrest MAYBE, use totality test – Invitation, 5hr interr, nothing about arrest YES – Taken to police station YES – INTERROGATION REQUIREMENT Island v. Innis (1980) definition of interrogation – Evokes right to counsel, back of squad car; officers talking about wanting to find gun b/c of handicapped children in area Innis – interrupts and takes them to gun. Not a Miranda Interrogation Rule express questioning or functional equivalent, that police should – know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. In part depends on suspect’s personality. Arizona v. Mauro not a Miranda violation to allow suspect to speak with – wife (also a suspect) in presence of officer and tape recorder in plain view. Not likely there’d be incrim statements no coercion or compelling – influence TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT Related to conveying what is in one’s mind. Pennsylvania v. (1990) Routine Booking Exception – First 7 Qs admissible failure to articulate proper speech is not – testimonial doesn’t look into mind of suspect, but is only a physical – characteristic 6th B-Day Question testimonial b/c could infer confused mental state from answer Statements made during field test admissible b/c Qs carefully scripted and not intended to illicit response. Heibel (2004) Identity is so insignif and universal, only incriminating in – unusual circum NY v. Quarles (1984) PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION – Statements leading to gun allowed b/c of overriding public safety Still have due process protection for statements (Essentially irrelevant b/c of Chavez and Patane)
Age should be taken into account in reasonable person determination – can be accounted for w/o damaging subjective nature of analysis Illinois v. Perkins (1990) – PRISON INMATE Placing agent w/ inmate doesn’t require Miranda warnings police dominated atmosphere and compulsion Howes v. Fields (2012) Interviewed about something not in jail for; told he could leave No Miranda Warnings req’d b/c not inherently coercive (could leave) Where is Custody triggered? (Hypo) Consensual encounter – NO Traffic Stop – NO Invitation to station, 30min interview, told not under arrest – NO Invitation, 30min, nothing about arrest – MAYBE, use totality test Invitation, 5hr interr, nothing about arrest – YES Taken to police station – YES INTERROGATION REQUIREMENT Island v. Innis (1980) – definition of interrogation Evokes right to counsel, back of squad car; officers talking about wanting to find gun b/c of handicapped children in area – Innis interrupts and takes them to gun. Not a Miranda Interrogation Rule – express questioning or functional equivalent, that police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. In part depends on suspect’s personality. Arizona v. Mauro – not a Miranda violation to allow suspect to speak with wife (also a suspect) in presence of officer and tape recorder in plain view. Not likely there’d be incrim statements – no coercion or compelling influence TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT Related to conveying what is in one’s mind. Pennsylvania v. (1990) – Routine Booking Exception First 7 Qs admissible – failure to articulate proper speech is not testimonial – doesn’t look into mind of suspect, but is only a physical characteristic 6th B-Day Question testimonial b/c could infer confused mental state from answer Statements made during field test admissible b/c Qs carefully scripted and not intended to illicit response. Heibel (2004) – Identity is so insignif and universal, only incriminating in unusual circum NY v. Quarles (1984) – PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION Statements leading to gun allowed b/c of overriding public safety Still have due process protection for statements (Essentially irrelevant b/c of Chavez and Patane)