United States of America v. Glenn W. Hall
421 F.2d 540 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For Miranda purposes, interrogation is 'custodial' when a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in any significant way. In the absence of a formal arrest, custody is determined by an objective test of whether the authorities, by their words or actions, indicated that the person being questioned was not free to leave.
Facts:
- On the morning of December 12, 1968, a man wearing a stocking mask and carrying a rifle robbed The Merchants National Bank in Cicero, NY.
- The robber forced an employee, Mrs. Richer, to put cash into a bag, took her car keys, and fled in her car, which was later found in a nearby bowling alley parking lot.
- A witness, Barbara Costick, who was in the bowling alley parking lot before the robbery, observed a suspicious man in a red car hiding his face and wrote down the license plate number.
- The license plate was traced to a Chevrolet assigned by an insurance company to its employee, defendant Hall.
- At 4:22 P.M. that day, three FBI agents went to Hall's apartment, and he voluntarily allowed them inside to speak with them.
- The agents told Hall a car matching his was seen near a bank robbery and, for approximately seventeen minutes, questioned him about his whereabouts that morning.
- During this initial questioning, Hall falsely stated that his car had been parked at his home all morning and he had risen at 9:00 A.M.
Procedural Posture:
- Hall was indicted in federal trial court for bank robbery.
- Prior to trial, Hall filed a motion to suppress the false exculpatory statement he made during the initial seventeen minutes of questioning, arguing it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress the statement.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Hall of bank robbery.
- Hall, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.
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 questioning a suspect in his own home for seventeen minutes, where he has not been arrested and the officers' conduct does not objectively indicate he is not free to leave, constitute 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly
No. Questioning a suspect in his own home where he is not under arrest and the officers' conduct is not coercive does not constitute 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings. The court reasoned that the test for custody under Miranda is not whether an investigation has 'focused' on a suspect, but whether the person has been 'deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' This test is objective and does not depend on the subjective beliefs of the officers or the suspect. In the absence of a formal arrest, there must be some police conduct, such as in the manner of approach or tone of questioning, that indicates to a reasonable person they are not free to leave. Here, the agents were interviewing Hall in the familiar surroundings of his own apartment, he had invited them in, and their questioning was not coercive or threatening. There was no objective indication that Hall would not have been allowed to depart or ask the agents to leave, so the initial questioning was not custodial.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the definition of 'custodial interrogation' outside the police station. It firmly rejects the older 'focus' test from Escobedo as the trigger for Miranda rights, cementing Miranda's shift to an objective test based on a significant deprivation of freedom. By creating this objective standard based on police conduct, the court provides a clearer, more practical guideline for law enforcement than one based on the subjective state of mind of either the officer or the suspect. This ruling preserves the ability of officers to conduct non-coercive, preliminary interviews in settings like a suspect's home without first giving Miranda warnings, thereby distinguishing general field investigation from coercive, in-custody interrogation.

Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Glenn W. Hall