AR: Defendant consented to search of storage unit without Miranda warnings

Defendant come home while a search warrant was being executed on his house, and he walked up to officers to ask what was going on, and one officer said “Hold him.” UnMirandized, he was asked about a storage unit, and he admitted he had one and he consented to a search of the unit. When confronted with the existence of another, he consented to a search of that. Defendant was an alleged habitual offender, so it was reasonable to conclude that he understood all that was going on. Defendant wasn’t Mirandized until after the consent, and it wasn’t written. Collins v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 574, 2014 Ark. App. LEXIS 847 (October 29, 2014):

We hold that, under these facts, the circuit court could have determined that a reasonable person in appellant’s circumstances would believe that he was not in custody. See Gardner v. State, 296 Ark. 41, 754 S.W.2d 518 (1988). Although custody may occur under circumstances in which the suspect is deprived of his freedom of movement and not only upon formal arrest, this court must consider the totality of the circumstances as a reasonable person would understand them to be. See James, supra.

We note that appellant was charged as a habitual offender; accordingly, the circuit court could reasonably infer that he had some previous knowledge about police procedures. According to Detective Welborn, appellant was not in custody until after the contraband had been found, and he was placed in handcuffs and formally arrested. Despite appellant’s testimony that an officer said to “hold him” when appellant arrived at his house, Detective Welborn testified that he was not aware that any officer had made that statement. Likewise, appellant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the storage facility without requesting alternative transportation. After considering the testimony concerning all of the attendant circumstances, the circuit court reasonably could have concluded that appellant was not in custody.

Because of the circuit court’s factual determination that appellant was not in custody, appellant was not entitled to Miranda warnings prior to his arrest. …