TERRANCE J. BROWN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Hotten, March 27, 2017,
Miranda- A suspect brought to the police station immediately after receiving treatment at a hospital may be more likely to be considered “in custody” for Miranda purposes than one transported from the street.
(Dissent- Barbera w/McDonald- Brown’s transport to the station was voluntary)
Seriously, how different would the world be if Miranda had come out AFTER Terry? Fewer judges getting confused by the word “custody” in Miranda *sigh*
Facts and Notes from the Case
Because this case is highly dependent on its facts, this section will include commentary on the facts as they relate to the opinion. The legal issues involved will be discussed afterward.
On October 5, 2014 at apx. 1 in the morning, police in Dorchester County received an anonymous call. The caller stated that he was injured, driving from Cambridge to a particular apartment complex, and he “didn’t want to go to jail.”
A State Trooper went to the apartment complex and saw a car pull into the complex. A man exited the vehicle. As the trooper approached the car, he observed blood in the passenger area. The people in the car said that they went down to Cambridge to get “T.J. Brown” and bring him back to the apartment complex.
The Trooper met with Brown’s mother, and she asked Brown to come outside to meet with police. Brown had blood on his shirt and dripping from his ear. Brown told police on scene that he was at a party when he heard gunshots and began to “duck and run” before noticing he was shot.
Brown was transported to a hospital in Salisbury for treatment. He was not under arrest, under guard, or handcuffed at this time. However, his car was towed as evidence.
A Cambridge detective met Brown at about 5:40 am as Brown was being discharged from the hospital. Brown was wearing a hospital gown, since his shirt was covered in blood. He also had a bandage on his head from the injury to his ear.
From the case: Because it was so early in the morning (5:40 am) and Brown was partially dressed, the Court found Brown was more likely to consider himself under arrest.
The Cambridge detective told Brown that the lead investigator “was interested in obtaining his story for his side of the events being he was a victim of that shooting.” Cambridge PD also advised Brown that his purpose was to “obtain” him “and ask him if he would consent to coming back” to the Cambridge Police Department “to ‘get[]’ a statement.”
From the case: The biggest issue from the Court was use of the word “obtain” because it suggested that Brown didn’t have a choice.
The trial court found that Brown “acquiesced” to the transport. Because “acquiesced” is less voluntary than “going willingly,” the Court of Appeals held that this meant that Brown felt pressured. Therefore it found the transport wasn’t as voluntary.
Detective Howard transported Brown in a marked police car directly from the hospital to the Cambridge Police Department. Brown was seated in the rear passenger seat. Brown was not handcuffed. During transport, Brown was told that his car had been towed but Brown was assured that proper arrangements would be made to get him transport home.
From the case: According to the Court, Brown was more likely to feel like he was under arrest because he wouldn’t be able to drive himself home afterward.
Detective Howard advised Brown numerous times that he was not under arrest.
From the case: The Court noted that because Brown was never told that he was free to refuse transportation back to the Cambridge Police Department, he was more likely to feel like he was under arrest (even where he was told that he wasn’t). Even though the officer was saying that Brown was not under arrest, the Court held that what the police were doing undercut that statement.
The Court held that there is a significant difference between telling someone that he is “not under arrest” and telling them that he is “free to leave.”
Upon arrival at the police department, Detective Howard entered through a door in the north tower located “apart from the entrance for the general public. Detectives Flynn and Curran were waiting for Detective Howard and [Brown] on the second floor.”
From the case: Because police used a non-public entrance, the Court held that it was more likely Brown would have felt under arrest.
Brown was then taken to an interview/interrogation room.
In the words of the Court: “Worse than being ‘cut off from normal life and companions,’ police transported Brown directly from the hospital, while Brown still wore hospital scrubs, to a police-dominated setting—the interrogation room of a police station.”
The door to the interview room was closed except when police personnel entered and exited the room. The suppression court found that “[Brown] was left alone in the room for approximately 15 minutes before Detective Flynn appeared for the interview.” “At no time from the beginning of the interview until [Brown] was told he was being arrested for homicide was he told that he was free to leave.”
From the case: Though Brown was told that he was being interviewed as a victim, the Court held that “a reasonable person in Brown’s position would not feel as though he or she was being considered as only a victim.”
Brown spoke with the detective for about six minutes before the detective read him his Miranda rights. When Detective Flynn told Brown that he would be advising him of his rights, Brown asked, “What, I’m under arrest?” and Detective Flynn replied, “No. You’re not under arrest.”
Brown then agreed to speak. At the conclusion of the interview, Brown was arrested for murder.
From the case: The fact that Brown was arrested after the interrogation suggested to the Court that he was under arrest the entire time.
The trial court ruled that Brown was in custody equivalent to arrest when he was questioned, and that he should have been mirandized before he was asked any questions related to the investigation.
The trial court therefore suppressed Brown’s statements. The State appealed, arguing that Brown came to the police station voluntarily.
Law from the Case
Held: Brown was subject to custodial interrogation at the time he was brought to the interview room in the station and should have been mirandized. Because he wasn’t read his rights, his statements were properly suppressed by the trial court.
Miranda- Interrogation – Miranda warnings:
If a person is in custody and subjected to interrogation, he must be informed that:
• he has the right to remain silent
• anything said can and will be used against the individual in court
• he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation
• if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
Miranda – If the person states during custodial interrogation that he wishes to remain silent or that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease.
Miranda- Custodial Interrogation – “Custodial” means either an arrest or a situation where a reasonable person would feel like he was under arrest.
Miranda- Determining Custody- In determining whether or not a reasonable person would feel like they were under arrest, the courts consider a number of factors such as:
Before questioning:
– how the defendant got to the place of questioning.
– For example: Did he come completely on his own? In response to a police request? or was he escorted there by police officers?
During questioning:
– when and where the interrogation occurred
– how long it lasted
– how many police were present
– what the officers and the defendant said and did
– the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door
– whether the defendant was being questioned as a suspect or as a witness.
After questioning:
– Whether the defendant left freely, was detained, or was arrested