Applying [Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980)], to the facts here, we conclude that the officers should have known that asking Allison if she lived at the house they had just searched could very likely evoke an incriminating response. We agree with Allison that this is not a situation where law officers merely issued a citation and needed personal information for the paperwork. Nor is this a situation where booking officers at a detention facility sought personal information for administrative purposes from an individual being booked. Under other facts, it may well be that questions about where one lives are permissible without first giving the Miranda warnings. But under the circumstances here, the information sought by the questions “where do you live” and “do you live here” was directly related to the crime the officers were investigating. The officers had just found drugs in plain view in the same room where they found Allison. They had just found paraphernalia in other parts of the house. In asking Allison if she lived there, the officers were focusing on her as a suspect in a drug investigation. Certainly the fact she lived there made the case stronger against her for possession of drugs and other contraband than if she lived elsewhere.The COA leaves open the possibility, as it must, that most routine questions by law enforcement officers are not "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda. But this type of situation--right after a search--is different.
The officers' questions were likely to and did, in fact, elicit an incriminating statement from Allison. Because the officers did not first give the warnings required in Miranda, those statements are not admissible. The district court properly ordered them
suppressed.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on February 21, 2008].
No comments:
Post a Comment