People v. Bury
556 N.E.2d 899, 145 Ill. Dec. 281, 199 Ill. App. 3d 207 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual is not in custody for Miranda purposes simply because law enforcement officers possess an unrevealed arrest warrant for that person; the determination of custody depends on whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood their freedom of action to be curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest.
Facts:
- On September 2, 1988, around 9 p.m., two State Police officers and two phone company security agents went to the home of Donald Bury.
- The police officers possessed a valid arrest warrant for Bury for computer fraud but did not immediately inform him of it.
- Bury invited the investigators into his home, and they proceeded to his kitchen, where his wife was also present.
- The officers indicated they wished to speak about Bury's dealings with U.S. Sprint, and Bury agreed to talk.
- Within 15 minutes, at 9:17 p.m., Bury signed a consent form authorizing a search of his residence.
- While two investigators searched his study, Bury continued speaking with an officer and provided a written confession around 9:30 p.m.
- After the search was completed and the statement was given, Bury asked if he should consult an attorney.
- Only after Bury made this inquiry did the officers inform him of the arrest warrant and place him under arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Bury was charged by information with computer fraud in the circuit court of Vermilion County, the trial court.
- Bury filed a motion to suppress his oral and written statements and all physical evidence taken from his home.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Bury as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a suspect in custody for Miranda purposes when police question them in their home without revealing that they possess a warrant for the suspect's arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lund
No. A suspect is not in custody for Miranda purposes merely because police possess an uncommunicated intent to arrest or an unexecuted arrest warrant. Custody is determined by an objective test based on the totality of the circumstances: whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have believed they were under arrest or that their freedom was restrained to the degree of a formal arrest. Here, the questioning occurred in Bury's own kitchen, with his wife present, was non-threatening, and lasted only about 30 minutes. The officers' subjective intent to arrest Bury, evidenced by the warrant, is irrelevant because it was never communicated to him and did not affect the objective circumstances of the interrogation. Therefore, a reasonable person in Bury's position would not have felt they were in custody, Miranda warnings were not required, and the statements were admissible. Likewise, the consent to search was voluntary, as Bury invited the officers in, was not subjected to coercion, and signed a form stating his right to refuse.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the objective nature of the Miranda custody analysis, clarifying that the uncommunicated intent of law enforcement officers is irrelevant. The decision gives police greater leeway to question suspects in non-coercive environments, like their homes, without providing Miranda warnings, even when they have already established probable cause and obtained an arrest warrant. It firmly places the focus of the inquiry on the suspect's reasonable perception of the situation, rather than on the officers' state of mind or secret plans. This precedent solidifies the distinction between an investigation that has 'focused' on a suspect and a situation that constitutes a formal custodial interrogation.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Bury