The Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s order suppressing a defendant’s un-Mirandized confession, holding that he was not in custody during a nearly 90-minute station-house interview. The decision is a straightforward application of State v. Diego, 169 N.E.3d 113 (Ind. 2021), but it is a useful reminder of how heavily the custody analysis now turns on what the officer says at the outset of the interview — and how little room the “freedom of movement” prong leaves for arguments about tone once the officer has said the right things.
The Interview
A detective investigating a child molesting allegation asked Hoffman’s wife and mother-in-law to have Hoffman contact him. Hoffman showed up at the police station on his own and was waiting in the lobby when the detective arrived. The detective, who was armed and wearing a badge, escorted him upstairs, through 3 or 4 doors, to a carpeted, windowless interview room. A keycard was needed to get in, but not to get out.
The room had 2 doors. The detective seated Hoffman next to one door and told him that door stayed unlocked, while the door behind the detective locked when closed. Another officer wanded Hoffman for safety. No Miranda warnings were given. The detective then told Hoffman he was not under arrest, not in custody, had come in on his own free will, and could leave through the unlocked door or just say he was done at any time. Hoffman said he wanted to “get it done and over with” because the military wanted to know what was going on.
After a long, friendly conversation about military service and the victim’s allegations, Hoffman admitted to having sex with the minor victim. After Hoffman mentioned he was suicidal, he was searched again and arrested.
The State charged Hoffman with several Level 1 felony counts of child molesting. Hoffman moved to suppress evidence of his confession because he was not Mirandized. The trial court granted the motion, and the State proceeded to an interlocutory appeal.
The Framework: E.R. and Diego
Under State v. E.R., 123 N.E.3d 675 (Ind. 2019), custody requires two things: (1) the person’s freedom of movement is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest; and (2) the person faces the same inherently coercive pressures as the station-house questioning in Miranda. The first prong asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to end the interview and leave, looking at the location, duration, and character of the questioning; statements made during it; the number of officers; police control over the environment; physical restraint; and how the interview began and ended.
The opinion walks through both of the Supreme Court’s leading cases. In E.R., the Court found custody where the officer told the defendant he needed to come to the station (no options as to time or place), the exit route was described as “labyrinthine,” a second officer shut the door and took over with aggressive, accusatory questioning, nobody told the defendant he was not under arrest or that he could still leave, officers lied about the accuser passing a polygraph, and they suggested things would get worse if he did not talk right then. In Diego, by contrast, the Court found no custody where the defendant came in on his own, was interviewed in the officer’s office with an unlocked door (though he did not know it), was told he was not under arrest and could leave, and faced questioning the Court called exploratory and conversational, despite some minor deception.
The Holding: This Case Looks Like Diego
The Court of Appeals decided the case on the first prong alone and did not reach the coercion prong. It emphasized that Hoffman came in voluntarily; the detective immediately and repeatedly explained which door was unlocked; only one officer questioned him; the tone was casual, non-threatening, and friendly; there was no deception; Hoffman was told he was not under arrest, not in custody, and free to leave; and the detective repeatedly said Hoffman would be going to work that day. Although the interview lasted nearly 90 minutes, much of it was casual conversation. The Court went so far as to say this interview was perhaps even less dramatic than the one in Diego.
Takeaway for Defense Counsel
An officer who clearly tells the suspect he is not under arrest, shows him an unlocked exit, and repeats it is in a very strong position on the freedom-of-movement prong. Arguments about the building’s layout or the number of officers nearby will have a hard time overcoming explicit, repeated assurances on video.