United States v. Ellison
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7814, 632 F.3d 727, 2010 WL 1493847 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Incarceration alone does not automatically render an interrogation "custodial" for Miranda purposes. Courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the interrogation environment subjected the individual to coercive pressures beyond the ordinary constraints of confinement.
Facts:
- Richard Ellison was held in a county jail on charges of attempting to set fire to the home of his ex-girlfriend, Robin Theriault.
- Ellison had also recently been convicted of violating a protective order involving Theriault.
- While in jail, Ellison informed a police detective that he had information about two unsolved robberies in Concord, New Hampshire.
- Concord Detective Todd Flanagan met Ellison in the jail library for an interview regarding the robberies.
- Ellison's restraints were removed, and Flanagan told him he was not under arrest for the robberies, did not have to answer questions, and could end the interview at any time.
- The detectives did not provide Ellison with Miranda warnings.
- During the recorded interview, Ellison implicated Theriault as the robber and admitted to his own supporting role in the crimes.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Ellison was indicted in federal district court for aiding and abetting robbery and aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
- Ellison filed a motion in the district court to suppress the statement he made to police.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Ellison entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Ellison (appellant) appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
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 the questioning of an incarcerated suspect about crimes unrelated to the reason for his detention constitute a 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings, simply by virtue of the suspect's incarcerated status?
Opinions:
Majority - Souter, Associate Justice
No. The questioning of an incarcerated suspect about unrelated crimes is not automatically a 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings. The freedom-of-movement test is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Miranda custody; the ultimate inquiry is whether the circumstances of the interrogation create the coercive pressures that Miranda was designed to counteract. Here, Ellison was not subjected to such pressures. He initiated the contact with police, the interview was in the less-intimidating jail library, his restraints were removed, and he was explicitly told he was not under arrest and could terminate the interview at will. Citing Maryland v. Shatzer, which held that imprisonment post-conviction does not create Miranda's coercive pressures, the court found no reason to believe the atmosphere was coercive here, even for a pre-trial detainee.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the principle from Maryland v. Shatzer—that imprisonment does not per se create a coercive environment for Miranda purposes—can be extended to pre-trial detainees under certain circumstances. It reinforces a totality-of-the-circumstances approach rather than a bright-line rule based on incarceration status. The ruling means that law enforcement may have more latitude to question inmates about unrelated crimes without giving Miranda warnings, provided the interrogation setting does not impose additional, coercive constraints beyond normal prison life. Future litigation will likely focus on the specific factual details of such interrogations to determine if they crossed the line into coercion.
