Defendant's subjective impressions don't determine in-custody status for Miranda purposes

Miranda United States v. Rogers, No. 04-4048, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004)(Utah). Government appeal of district court order suppressing firearm evidence and statements made by defendant under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in case involving unlawful possession of firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) and (9). HELD: District court erroneously suppressed evidence and statements made by defendant by improperly relying on subjective impressions of defendant and police officers to determine whether defendant was in custody at time he made statements concerning presence and location of firearms in his home. Under totality of circumstances, where defendant voluntarily invited police into home as they assisted his girlfriend in removing belongings under civil protective order, defendant's freedom of action was not limited to degree associated with formal arrest. Because limitation on defendant's freedom of action did not rise to level of formal arrest, defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Therefore, firearms and statements were not subject to suppression under Miranda. Read the opinion here.