What is the current state of the law on the Miranda warning?

The trial court concluded defendant was not in custody at the time he made the challenged statements. Miranda warnings must be provided once a suspect is taken into custody. (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 198.) The standard for determining whether a suspect has been taken into custody is an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances: "Would a reasonable person interpret the restraints used by

Page 6

the police as tantamount to a formal arrest?" (People v. Pilster (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1403.) Pertinent factors include "(1) whether the suspect has been formally arrested; (2) absent formal arrest, the length of the detention; (3) the location; (4) the ratio of officers to suspects; and (5) the demeanor of the officer, including the nature of the questioning." (People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1753.) "Additional factors are whether the suspect agreed to the interview and was informed he or she could terminate the questioning, whether police informed the person he or she was considered a witness or suspect, whether there were restrictions on the suspect's freedom of movement during the interview, and whether police officers dominated and controlled the interrogation or were 'aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory,' whether they pressured the suspect, and whether the suspect was arrested at the conclusion of the interview." (Pilster, at pp. 1403-1404.)

"The question whether defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact. [Citation.] 'Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.'" (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401-402.) The first inquiry is factual and subject to the deferential substantial evidence standard; the second inquiry is legal and subject to de novo review. (Ibid.)⁴