OFFICER TAYLOR WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT MIRANDA WARNINGS ON THE STAIRCASE BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS HE ASKED WERE PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY.
Miranda warnings are required only before custodial interrogations. (People v. Davison (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 966.) If a statement is made in a non-custodial setting and is preliminary in nature, the statements are admissible against the speaker even when they are not preceded by Miranda warnings. (People v. Battaglia (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 1058, 1065.) Miranda is not applicable during preliminary questioning or to gratuitous statements made by the defendant, not in response to a question. (Berkermer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420.)
(A) The defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda.
When determining whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda, the court must take into account all of the circumstances surrounding the questioning. (California v. Behelery (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125.) The totality of the circumstances considered includes: (1) whether the suspect has been formally arrested; (2) absent a formal arrest, the length of the detention; (3) the location; (4) the ratio of officers to suspects and (5) the demeanor of the officer,…show more content… Forster, the Court stated that Foster had not been arrested, but the detention was relatively long, more than an hour. (People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal. App. 4th 1746.) However, Foster was detained in a public area, not restrained nor handcuffed, and not addressed by any officers. (Id.) Forster simply sat quietly on a bench. (Id.) The facts are silent in regards to the fourth criteria and there were no facts to discern any overbearing on either the officer or suspect. (Id.) The Court was left with one only left with the one factor, namely the one-hour-plus detention. (Id.) Thus, based on the totality of circumstances, Foster was not definitely detained and therefore not in custody for Miranda purposes.
