D voluntarily comes to station & isn’t arrested (Beheler) Including parolees (Mathiason) Call probationer to probation office (Murphy) Smaller likelihood of at workplace “custody” (Bassignani, compared to Griffin) Discussing tax returns at table after D invites IRS Beckwith – in custody ≠ Cop’s subjective & undisclosed perception of Stansbury – whether = irrelevant unless somehow manifested to “suspect” D, in which case just one factor stop custody b/c brief, limited, no req to Berkemer Terry – ≠ respond, quick release unless PC On habeas, age = irrelevant to custodial status, Yarborough – which is objective test NOT TRUE AGE FIGURES INTO THE – EQUATION!!! Custody to interrogate inmate Mathis – Not considered per se rule that in jail in custody (11C) Custody of inmates turns on whether Garcia – reasonable person would believe prison officials further diminished inmate’s freedom of movement No custody when D voluntarily came to station, Mathiason – told not under arrest, allowed to leave station Brennan: D was parolee, so this wasn’t voluntary Same, but not parolee Beheler – No custody to call probationer to probation office to Murphy – question re: rape & murder b/c no actual arrest & D as irrelevant “suspect” Marshall: Reasonable person in D’s position would’ve believed req’d to answer questions honestly as condition of probation (8C) Custody when FBI questioned D at home, sent Griffin – parents to other room, didn’t tell D was voluntary or Mirandize, escorted D when left area, arrested D at end of interrogation (9C) No custody w/ similar but at Bassignani – workplace Defining Interrogation: Test: Whether cops should know statements/questions are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response (Innis) Emphasis on whether statement was result of police strategy intended to get statements Booking exception for routine Qs like name, DOB, etc. (Muniz Rehnquist)
D voluntarily comes to station & isn’t arrested (Beheler) Including parolees (Mathiason) Call probationer to probation office (Murphy) Smaller likelihood of “custody” at workplace (Bassignani, compared to Griffin) Beckwith – Discussing tax returns at table after D invites IRS in ≠ custody Stansbury – Cop’s subjective & undisclosed perception of whether “suspect” = irrelevant unless somehow manifested to D, in which case just one factor Berkemer – Terry stop ≠ custody b/c brief, limited, no req to respond, quick release unless PC Yarborough – On habeas, age = irrelevant to custodial status, which is objective test NOT TRUE – AGE FIGURES INTO THE EQUATION!!! Mathis – Custody to interrogate inmate Not considered per se rule that in jail in custody Garcia (11C) – Custody of inmates turns on whether reasonable person would believe prison officials further diminished inmate’s freedom of movement Mathiason – No custody when D voluntarily came to station, told not under arrest, allowed to leave station Brennan: D was parolee, so this wasn’t voluntary Beheler – Same, but not parolee Murphy – No custody to call probationer to probation office to question re: rape & murder b/c no actual arrest & D as “suspect” irrelevant Marshall: Reasonable person in D’s position would’ve believed req’d to answer questions honestly as condition of probation Griffin (8C) – Custody when FBI questioned D at home, sent parents to other room, didn’t tell D was voluntary or Mirandize, escorted D when left area, arrested D at end of interrogation Bassignani (9C) – No custody w/ similar but at workplace Defining Interrogation: Test: Whether cops should know statements/questions are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response (Innis) Emphasis on whether statement was result of police strategy intended to get statements Booking exception for routine Qs like name, DOB, etc. (Muniz Rehnquist)
Criminal%20Procedure%20-%20Cheh%20-%20Fall%202011.docx