Police may need to provide Miranda warnings to persons held under investigative detention

SEARCH & SEIZURE United States v. Revels, No. 06-5223, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2007)(N.D. Oklahoma). Government interlocutory appeal of district court’s pretrial order suppressing incriminating statements made by defendant as having been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). HELD: (1) Even though officers properly held defendant under “investigative detention,” they were not relieved of duty to advise her of Miranda rights. Propriety of investigative detention is governed by Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness of seizure whereas necessity of providing Miranda warnings as required by Fifth Amendment is determined by analysis of whether defendant is in custody. Each inquiry is analytically distinct. [M]erely because a particular police-citizen encounter can be neatly packaged under the label “investigatory detention” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that police are freed of their obligation to inform the citizen of her rights under Miranda in appropriate cases. (2) Defendant should have been provided Miranda warnings because under totality of circumstances, reasonable person in defendant’s position would have understood her freedom of action was restricted by police to degree consistent with formal arrest. Specifically, defendant would have perceived a police-dominated atmosphere equivalent to formal arrest where: (1) several police officers roused defendant and her boyfriend from bedroom at 6:00 a.m. after forcibly entering home; (2) defendant was immediately restrained in handcuffs and placed face down on floor wearing only underclothes; (3) defendant was then made to sit under supervision of officers while police executed search warrant; (4) before questioning began, defendant was separated from boyfriend and children, and escorted to rear bedroom; and (5) once inside bedroom, behind closed door, three officers conducted interrogation. Read the opinion here.