Caputo v. Nelson
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18684, 455 F.3d 45, 2006 WL 2062867 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer's words or actions, conducted in the presence of a suspect who has invoked their right to remain silent, do not constitute the 'functional equivalent' of an interrogation if the police should not have reasonably known that their conduct was likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Facts:
- In the early morning of November 2, 1989, police discovered the bodies of Michael Caputo's estranged wife and mother-in-law, who had been stabbed multiple times, in their Boston apartment.
- At the scene, officers found cut telephone wires and a protective order directing Caputo to stay away from the apartment.
- Police went to Caputo's home, where he permitted them to enter.
- After being read his Miranda rights, Caputo stated he did not wish to speak, and officers immediately ceased all questioning.
- An officer, Sergeant Dorman, with Caputo's permission, used Caputo's phone to call the police station.
- Within Caputo's hearing, Dorman reported over the phone that Caputo's car engine was warm and that the car had two different registration plates.
- Upon overhearing this, Caputo spontaneously stated that he did not want to incriminate himself but proceeded to tell the officers a story about being kidnapped the previous night.
Procedural Posture:
- Before trial, Caputo filed a motion in Massachusetts Superior Court (the trial court) to suppress the statements he made to police.
- The trial court judge denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury convicted Caputo on two counts of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced.
- Caputo appealed his conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the state's highest court), which affirmed the judgments.
- Caputo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The district court denied the petition, and Caputo, the petitioner-appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's telephone report of factual observations to a superior, made within the hearing of a suspect who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, constitute the 'functional equivalent' of an interrogation in violation of Miranda?
Opinions:
Majority - Stafford, Senior District Judge
No. A police officer's telephone report of factual observations does not constitute the functional equivalent of an interrogation. The standard for interrogation under Rhode Island v. Innis includes not only express questioning but also any police words or actions they should know are 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.' Here, Sergeant Dorman's call was a brief, non-evocative report of facts to another officer, consistent with actions 'normally attendant to arrest and custody.' He did not engage in a 'lengthy harangue' or use evocative language designed to provoke a response. Therefore, Caputo's subsequent spontaneous statement was not the product of an unlawful interrogation, and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'functional equivalent of interrogation' doctrine from Rhode Island v. Innis by clarifying that not all police statements made in a suspect's presence constitute interrogation. The court established that police may communicate factual, non-evocative information about evidence without violating Miranda, even after a suspect invokes the right to silence. This ruling provides law enforcement with a degree of latitude in conducting routine police procedures and communications, shifting the focus to whether the police conduct was objectively and reasonably likely to provoke a response, rather than whether it actually did.
