Topics
Criminal Law
Dangerous Distracted Drivers
Dangers of Texting and Driving
Divorce Procedure
Divorce is a Lawsuit
Dog Bites Human; Human Recovers Damages
Doguman Bite Human; Human Recovers Damages
Nuts and Bolt of Auto Insurance
Should I consult with an attorney before cooperating with the other party?s insurance company?
What is Negligence?
When Accidents Occur
When to Hire a Car Accident Lawyer
Recent Updates
January 09, 2010
Dog Bites Human; Human Recovers Damages
November 29, 2009
DWD
November 28, 2009
Distracted Driving Statistics
November 23, 2009
Divorce is a Lawsuit
November 23, 2009
What is Negligence?
Archives
When are "Miranda" Warnings Required?
Posted by: Tim Keck
September 02, 2009
Topic: Criminal Law
The determination of whether an interrogation is custodial, so as to trigger the requirement for Miranda warnings, involves a two-prong test. First, the court determines the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, employing a substantial competent evidence standard. Next, the court employs a de novo standard to determine whether, under the totality of those circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and disengage from the encounter.
Here, although the interview occurred in a law enforcement facility, it was not the station of the interviewing detective. The detective suggested moving the interview to that site for convenience, i.e., to avoid interruption by customers at Jerry's workplace, and Jerry agreed to the move. Jerry drove himself to the location, accompanied by Tammy. The interview was conducted in the lobby of the facility, rather than an isolated interview room. Jerry was told he was free to leave whenever he wanted. Further, Jerry points out in his brief that the detective "told [him] numerous times that no matter what he said he would not be arrested." The totality of the circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that he or she was free to terminate the conversation and leave at any time. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's determination that Jerry was not in custody and the failure to give him the Miranda warnings did not mandate the suppression of his statements.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, No. 99,411, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JERRY W. TRUSSELL, Appellant.
