97 N.E.3d 671
Mass.2018Background
- Plainclothes detectives observed Cawthron in a convenience store parking lot overhearably arranging what they suspected was a drug purchase; they followed him to a nearby steakhouse/restaurant parking lot.
- Flodstrom arrived, the two men met, exchanged items, and detectives approached, identified themselves, and ordered the men not to move.
- Detectives separated the men a few yards apart to question them individually; Donovan orally gave Flodstrom Miranda warnings (imperfectly recalled), and Columbus questioned Cawthron.
- Flodstrom admitted selling 300 Oxycodone pills and produced $600; Donovan then handcuffed and arrested him. Columbus found a pill bottle under Cawthron’s car seat after Cawthron said where the pills were, then handcuffed and then read Miranda warnings.
- Both were indicted for trafficking and conspiracy; the motion judge suppressed post-questioning statements and the pill bottle as obtained after custodial interrogation without adequate Miranda warnings.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding the encounters were noncustodial Terry-type stops and Miranda warnings were not required at the time of the questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detectives’ questioning during the parking-lot encounter was custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings | Encounter was a brief Terry-type stop and the questioning was preliminary fact-finding, so not custodial | The stop, separation, officer control, and subsequent arrest rendered the questioning custodial, so Miranda was required | Not custodial; Miranda not required before the challenged statements (court reversed suppression) |
| Whether evidence (pill bottle) found after statements should be suppressed as fruit of unwarned custodial interrogation | Seizure was contemporaneous with a noncustodial, voluntary admission locating the pills; evidence admissible | Pills were located only because of unwarned custodial statements; thus fruit should be suppressed | Evidence admissible because the statements were noncustodial and plain-fact finding justified the recovery; suppression reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (sets multi-factor custody test)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (traffic stops are generally noncustodial)
- Commonwealth v. Larkin, 429 Mass. 426 (custody assessed by reasonable-person coercion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Kirwan, 448 Mass. 304 (Terry-stop questioning can be noncustodial)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 390 Mass. 729 (no single Groome factor is usually dispositive)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (restraint on movement is only the first step in custody analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Vanhouton, 424 Mass. 327 (public setting less police-dominated; noncustodial)
- Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367 (brief, conversational field inquiry noncustodial)