Miranda purposes if he is free to terminate the interrogation and return to
general population.
The court stressed that the relevant question in applying Miranda in
contexts other than station house questioning is whether the environment
creates an inherently coercive atmosphere similar to that which led to the rule
in Miranda. The court noted three reasons that the mere fact of imprisonment
does not create an inherently coercive atmosphere: (1) questioning an inmate
does not usually create the type of shock which often accompanies an arrest; (2)
a person who is already serving a sentence is unlikely to speak to officers out of
a desire to obtain a prompt release; and (3) a prisoner likely knows that law
enforcement officers who question him on unrelated charges lack authority to
affect the duration of his current sentence. The court also noted that
questioning a prisoner in private does not have the same coercive effect as
questioning a suspect outside the presence of supportive friends or family;
“[f]ellow inmates are by no means necessarily friends.”
3. Considering all of the circumstances here, the defendant was not in
“custody” for Miranda purposes when he was questioned concerning alleged
criminal activity which occurred before he was incarcerated. The court
acknowledged that several factors favored a finding that defendant was in
custody. First, defendant did not invite or consent to the questioning, and was
not told that he was free to decline to speak with the deputies. Second, the
interview lasted between five and seven hours and continued past the hour
when defendant usually went to bed. Third, the deputies who questioned the
respondent were armed. Fourth, one of the deputies used a sharp tone and
profanity.
The court concluded, however, that the above factors were offset by several
others - defendant was told several times that he could go back to his cell
whenever he wanted, he was not threatened or physically restrained, the
interview occurred in a well-lighted, averaged-sized room where the door was left
open some of the time, and defendant was offered food and water. The court
concluded that under these circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt
free to terminate the interview and ask to be returned to his cell.
The court acknowledged that defendant could not return to his cell on his
own, but would have to await an escort. This fact did not make the interrogation
custodial, however, because prisoners are not free to roam about the prison for
any reason and would have no reasonable expectation of doing so.
Because the defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes, the
officers who questioned him did not err by failing to give Miranda warnings
before interrogating him about alleged criminal behavior which occurred before
his incarceration.
53
