United States v. Heather L. Lanni
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29749, 1991 WL 269748, 951 F.2d 440 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An interrogation is not necessarily custodial for Miranda purposes, even if it is lengthy and psychologically coercive, as long as it occurs in the suspect's home and does not involve restraints on freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest.
Facts:
- Two FBI agents, suspecting the defendant of embezzlement, arrived at her home between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m.
- The defendant, who had just awakened, allowed the agents to enter her home.
- An agent asked the defendant's husband to leave the living room so they could interview her alone; the husband complied and remained in an adjacent room with their two-year-old son.
- The interview lasted approximately four hours, during which the agents first asked biographical questions and then about her work procedures.
- The agents then directed the defendant and her husband to provide extensive handwriting exemplars, a process that took about one hour.
- The questioning became 'intense' as an agent expressed disbelief at her denial of involvement with a forged check.
- The defendant eventually began crying and provided an oral and then a written confession.
- Throughout the four-hour period, the defendant was not told she was free to leave, but she also was not physically restrained or told she could not leave.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in U.S. District Court with embezzlement from a federally insured credit union.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress statements made to FBI agents, arguing they were obtained in violation of her Miranda rights.
- After a suppression hearing, the district court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that she was not 'in custody' during the interrogation.
- The defendant then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the district court's adverse ruling on her suppression motion.
- The defendant appealed the denial of her motion to suppress 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 four-hour, increasingly intense interrogation of a suspect by two FBI agents in the suspect's home, where the agents requested to speak with the suspect alone, constitute a 'custodial interrogation' requiring Miranda warnings?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge
No. A four-hour interrogation in a suspect's home, even if intense, does not rise to the level of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings when the suspect's freedom of movement is not restrained to the degree of a formal arrest. The court applied a totality of the circumstances test to determine if the defendant was 'in custody.' Factors suggesting she was not in custody included the questioning occurring in her familiar home, the presence of only two agents, the absence of physical restraints or tricks, and her family being nearby. Factors suggesting she was in custody included the long duration (four hours), the increasing intensity of the questioning, the early hour, and the agent's request to isolate her from her husband. The court distinguished the case from precedents where suspects were physically monitored or told to remain in view of agents. Concluding that the facts placed the case in a 'gray area,' the court held that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that the defendant was not in custody and that a reasonable view of the evidence supported its decision.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to establish 'custody' for Miranda purposes in a non-stationhouse setting. It clarifies that psychological pressure and a lengthy interrogation, without more direct physical or verbal assertions of authority, are often insufficient to transform a home interview into a custodial situation. The case demonstrates the significant deference appellate courts grant to trial courts' fact-intensive custody determinations, upholding them so long as they are supported by a 'reasonable view of the evidence.' Consequently, it provides law enforcement with considerable latitude to conduct intensive interviews in suspects' homes without triggering Miranda obligations, while also signaling that such tactics exist in a 'gray area' that approaches the constitutional line.
