D.Nev.: SWAT team in your house is “custodial” for Miranda purposes

After the LVMPD SWAT team raided defendant’s house and held everybody at gunpoint in zipties, the situation was custodial. The government had no evidence defendant was Mirandized before he made an incriminating statement. [The fact the government argued it wasn’t is the surprise here.] United States v. Humphries, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175823 (D.Nev. Sept. 24, 2015):

The court finds Mr. Humphries’ testimony on this point more credible than Detective Ramirez’s testimony. A police detective interrogates suspects as a regular job activity. Confusing details of successive interviews is a real possibility. For this reason, officers typically record Miranda warnings if recording equipment is available (as was the case here), or at a minimum, have the suspect sign a card acknowledging that he received the Miranda warnings.

Mr. Humphries’ description of his discussion about Miranda rights as they were entering the bedroom was highly credible. There is no doubt that Mr. Humphries’ experience that day was anything but routine. The court finds that Mr. Humphries accurately testified regarding what was said by Detective Ramirez and Mr. Humphries regarding Miranda warnings on August 30, 2012.

The circumstances of Mr. Humphries’ interrogation show that Detective Ramirez had every opportunity to memorialize whether he Mirandized Mr. Humphries. The circumstances were not emergent; Detective Ramirez is not inexperienced; Mr. Humphries was not a flight risk; and Detective Ramirez was not without support staff. However, the government provided no explanation for Detective Ramirez’s failure to document his version of the facts. Under these circumstances, the court finds that the government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating compliance with Miranda.

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.