City Of Vancouver v. Hamid A. Khan, 48880-9

On March 10–11, 2014, Vancouver charged Hamid Khan with fourth degree assault after his wife reported he had slapped her during an argument.
Two uniformed officers (Deputy Raquer and Corporal Hemstock) responded to a hung-up 911 call and spoke with Khan in a sitting room inside his home while Hemstock spoke with Khan’s wife near the entry.
Raquer did not handcuff Khan, did not tell him he was under arrest, and did not advise him of Miranda rights; Khan admitted he slapped his wife.
Dispute at suppression hearing over whether Khan was in custody for Miranda purposes (Raquer escorted Khan upstairs to retrieve ID; uncertain whether ID was taken/returned before the admission).
Trial court admitted Khan’s statements; jury convicted him of fourth degree assault and found a household relationship.
On appeal Khan argued (1) his statements should have been suppressed as custodial, and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Khan’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Khan was in custody for Miranda purposes when he made statements at home	Conversation was custodial because officer stood by door, followed him for ID, and did not tell him he was free to leave	Not custodial: only two uniformed officers, no restraints/threats, not isolated in a police-dominated setting, ambiguous ID facts	Not custodial; statements admissible (totality of circumstances, Craighead factors)
Whether prosecutor expressed impermissible personal opinions in closing argument	Prosecutor repeatedly voiced personal belief in Khan’s guilt and told jurors which witnesses to believe	Statements argued to be commentary on evidence and instructions, not personal opinions on guilt/credibility	No misconduct; challenged statements were argument about evidence and law, not improper personal opinions

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation)
State v. Heritage, 152 Wn.2d 210 (Miranda protects against statements made in coercive custodial settings)
State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 (custody requires restraint comparable to formal arrest)
United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (four-factor test for custody at home)
State v. Rosas-Miranda, 176 Wn. App. 773 (applied Craighead factors to in-home custody analysis)
State v. Dennis, 16 Wn. App. 417 (in-home questioning can be custodial depending on officer conduct and statements)
State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438 (standard for prosecutorial misconduct review)
Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (custodial interrogation may occur in the home)