United States v. Insook Kim, AKA in Sook Kim
292 F.3d 969 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is considered 'in custody' for Miranda purposes, even in a familiar setting like their own business, if the totality of the circumstances shows a restraint on their freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Such circumstances can include police isolating the individual from family, restricting their communication, controlling their movement, and creating a police-dominated atmosphere during interrogation.
Facts:
- Investigators suspected Insook Kim's store, the 'Li'l Brick Deli,' was involved in selling large quantities of pseudoephedrine, a methamphetamine precursor.
- Months prior to the search, a DEA investigator and a Korean-speaking deputy had visited Kim's store to advise her about the link between pseudoephedrine sales and meth production.
- On August 3, 2000, police executed a search warrant at the deli, where they found and began questioning Kim's 18-year-old son, Kevin.
- Kim and her husband, worried after their son did not answer the store's phone, drove to the location.
- Upon arriving at the store, Kim found numerous police cars and a locked door. An officer allowed Kim inside.
- The officer then immediately shut and locked the door, preventing Kim's husband from entering and leaving him outside for approximately three hours.
- Inside, officers ordered Kim to 'shut up' and speak English, not her native Korean, and prevented her from communicating with her son.
- Officers directed Kim to a seating area where she was questioned for at least 45-50 minutes, during which she felt surrounded and was never told she was free to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Insook Kim was indicted in federal district court for possession and distribution of pseudoephedrine.
- Kim filed a pre-trial motion to suppress incriminating statements made to police during the search of her store, arguing they were obtained in violation of her Fifth Amendment Miranda rights.
- The district court (the court of first instance) granted Kim's motion to suppress, finding that she was 'in custody' and should have received Miranda warnings.
- The United States (the government), as appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where Kim was 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:
Does a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings occur when police, while executing a search warrant, question a store owner who voluntarily entered her own store but was then isolated from her family, had her movements and communications restricted, and was subjected to a lengthy interrogation in a police-dominated atmosphere?
Opinions:
Majority - Berzon, Circuit Judge
Yes, a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings occurred under these circumstances. Although Kim voluntarily entered the store, that fact does not end the inquiry, as the situation became custodial once she was inside. The court's 'in custody' determination is based on the totality of the circumstances, which would have made a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave. Key factors creating this custodial environment included the police locking the door behind Kim, separating her from her husband and son, restricting her communication, ordering her where to sit and what language to speak, and the overall length and nature of the questioning. This created a 'police-dominated atmosphere' and a restraint on freedom of movement equivalent to a formal arrest, thus triggering the need for Miranda warnings. The court distinguished the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonable seizure' standard during a search from the Fifth Amendment's 'in custody' standard for Miranda.
Dissenting - O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge
No, Kim was not 'in custody' for Fifth Amendment purposes. A review of the objective circumstances does not show a restraint on freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Applying the established five-factor test, the balance weighs against a finding of custody: Kim was not summoned but came voluntarily; she was not confronted with evidence of guilt; she was in the familiar surroundings of her own store; and the degree of pressure was minimal as she was not handcuffed or told she was under arrest. While the duration of the interview was lengthy, the other factors are more compelling. The police actions, such as locking the door, were reasonable security measures for executing a search warrant and do not, on their own, create a custodial situation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'in custody' analysis for Miranda purposes is highly fact-specific and is not defeated simply because an interrogation occurs in a familiar setting or because the suspect initially entered the scene voluntarily. The case establishes that police actions that create a coercive, police-dominated environment—such as isolating a suspect from family and controlling their movement and communication—can transform a non-custodial encounter into a custodial one. This precedent reinforces the importance of the 'totality of the circumstances' test and limits the ability of law enforcement to circumvent Miranda requirements by orchestrating interrogations outside of a traditional police station setting.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Insook Kim, AKA in Sook Kim