State v. Anderson
937 S.W. 2d 851, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 583 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether an individual is 'in custody' for Miranda purposes is based on an objective test: whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect's position would consider their freedom of movement restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest. The uncommunicated, subjective beliefs of law enforcement officers that the individual is a suspect are irrelevant to this inquiry.
Facts:
- An arson investigator, Johnny Hayes, identified Joe Anderson as a suspect in an arson case after a co-defendant implicated him.
- Following a failed attempt to obtain a recorded incriminating statement, Hayes went to Anderson's home and asked him to come to the sheriff's office for questioning.
- Anderson voluntarily drove himself and his wife to the sheriff's office.
- At the office, Anderson was questioned by three officers in a separate room while his wife waited elsewhere.
- Investigator Hayes told Anderson that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time, but did not administer Miranda warnings.
- Throughout the interview, the officers subjectively considered Anderson a suspect but did not communicate this belief to him.
- Anderson provided a statement, which was transcribed and signed, after which he was told he was free to go.
Procedural Posture:
- Joe Anderson was indicted for arson by a grand jury.
- Anderson filed a pretrial motion in the trial court to suppress a statement he made to an investigator.
- The trial court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that Anderson was 'in custody' because he was the focus of the investigation.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- A divided Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to suppress the statement.
- The State, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In determining whether a person is 'in custody' for the purpose of requiring Miranda warnings, is the relevant standard the subjective 'focus' of the police investigation on that person, or is it an objective test based on whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would perceive their freedom was restrained to the degree of a formal arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, Justice.
No. The correct standard is an objective test based on how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would perceive their freedom of movement. The subjective focus of the police investigation is not the determinative factor for whether a person is 'in custody.' The court held that the ultimate inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent in cases like Stansbury v. California, the court explicitly rejected the 'focus' test, which considers the uncommunicated subjective views of interrogating officers. An officer's suspicions are only relevant if they are communicated to the individual and would affect how a reasonable person perceives their freedom to leave. The court therefore overruled prior state precedent, like State v. Morris, to the extent it relied on the 'focus' of the investigation as a relevant factor in the custody analysis.
Analysis:
This decision officially aligns Tennessee's Miranda custody standard with the prevailing objective test established by the U.S. Supreme Court. By explicitly overruling prior state case law that utilized the subjective 'focus' test, the court provides a clearer, more predictable framework for law enforcement and lower courts. The ruling shifts the analysis away from the officers' unstated beliefs and concentrates solely on the objective circumstances of the interrogation. This change prevents the custody determination from depending on the 'self-serving declarations' of either the police or the defendant, establishing that the key factor is how a reasonable person would interpret the situation, not what was in the officer's mind.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Anderson