Colorado's Courts Consider Custody
| Publication year | 1994 |
| Pages | 1519 |
1994, July, Pg. 1519. Colorado's Courts Consider Custody
The Fifth Amendment embodies one of the basic rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons that were used for centuries in England compelled the American colonists to incorporate the denial of the right to question an accused person into their fundamental law. The privilege against self-incrimination reflects the notion that a system of law enforcement that comes to depend on the confession will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system relying on independent investigation.(fn1)
Against the backdrop of these principles, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1966, decided the case of Miranda v. Arizona.(fn2) Miranda addressed the problems of how the Fifth Amendment privilege could be protected from the coercive pressures that can be brought to bear on a suspect in the context of custodial interrogations. After engaging in an extensive review of the overzealous police practices frequently employed to elicit confessions, the Court set forth safeguards designed to protect against the dangers inherent in incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere.
To dissipate the overbearing compulsion inherent in custodial interrogation, Miranda requires the exclusion of incriminating statements obtained during custodial interrogation unless, prior to any questioning, individuals have been warned that they have the right to remain silent; that any statements they do make may be used against them; and that they have a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. In the years since Miranda, the Supreme Court has frequently reaffirmed the central principal established by that case: Miranda forbids coercion.
Since Miranda, courts have wrestled with the issue of what constitutes "custody," thereby triggering the need to administer Miranda warnings. Miranda defined "custodial interrogation" as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way.(fn3) Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court opinions have considered whether various factual situations constitute a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.(fn4) However, it is not clear whether the Court is restating or refining Miranda's definition of custody.
Lower courts that have addressed the custody issue in the years since Miranda fall into three general categories. Some courts have continued to rely on the definition of custody originally set forth in the Miranda opinion. These courts evaluate whether a suspect is in custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way.(fn5) A second group examines whether there has been a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.(fn6) A third group of courts, eschewing any formalistic language, asks simply whether the individual being questioned was free to leave.(fn7)
While lower courts differ in their articulated definitions of custody, they are nearly unanimous in applying an objective test to the custody determination. This test was first announced by the Supreme Court ten years ago in Berkemer v. McCarty.(fn8) The Court held that the standard to be applied in determining whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his or her situation. The Court stated that an objective, reasonable person test is appropriate because, unlike a subjective test, it is not solely dependent either on the self-serving declarations of the police officers or the defendant, nor does it place on the police the burden of anticipating the frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person they question.
The Colorado courts have consistently cited the original language of the Miranda decision in defining custody for purposes
of the Miranda warnings. Those warnings are required when a person is subjected to police interrogation after having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way.(fn9)
Colorado, like the U.S. Supreme Court, recognizes that custody encompasses more than formal arrest situations.(fn10) As a result, custody is not limited to the situation in which the defendant is actually placed under arrest.(fn11) A person obviously is in custody when that person has been subjected to the constraints associated with a formal arrest.(fn12) The Miranda requirements also extend to police interrogations conducted...
To continue reading
Request your trial