Louis Torres v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2016 SC 000228

In October 2014 Lexington detectives went to Louis Torres's home after an 11‑year‑old alleged sexual assault by her uncle; officers were allowed inside and found Torres awake in his bedroom.
Torres agreed to accompany two detectives (plainclothes, armed) to the Lexington police station; a uniformed Nicholasville officer stepped outside at the detectives' request.
During transport in an unmarked car Torres sat unrestrained in the front passenger seat and was repeatedly told he was not under arrest.
At the station Torres was interviewed for about two hours with an interpreter; he was told he was free to leave and never asked to leave during the interview.
Torres was arrested after the interview and charged with multiple counts of first‑degree sexual abuse; he moved to suppress the statement as obtained in custody without Miranda warnings.
The trial court denied suppression (finding no custody for Miranda purposes); Torres entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the suppression issue and appealed his sentence (20 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Torres)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether Torres was "in custody" such that Miranda warnings were required	He felt compelled to go, was awakened at home, had limited English, and therefore was effectively restrained	Entry into the home was not contested, he consented to go, was told he was not under arrest, and was not physically restrained or threatened	Not in custody; suppression denial affirmed
Whether transport to station converted encounter into custody	Voluntary ride was coercive because officers were armed and he was not fluent in English	He sat unrestrained in front seat, was told multiple times he was not under arrest, and did not ask to leave	Transport did not create custody
Whether station interview was custodial	Station setting, presence of detectives, and incomplete Miranda made it coercive	Interview lasted two hours, he was told he was free to leave, never requested to leave, and was not coerced	Interview not custodial; Miranda warnings not required
Whether incomplete Miranda recitation requires suppression	Incomplete warnings deprived him of rights and tainted statements	Warnings were unnecessary because the encounter was noncustodial; therefore incompleteness is irrelevant	Incomplete recitation irrelevant because no custody existed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors indicating custody: multiple officers, display of weapon, physical touching, tone of voice)
Smith v. Commonwealth, 312 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 2010) (custody analysis factors and objective free‑to‑leave test)
King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649 (Ky. 2010) (custody question reviewed de novo)
Baker v. Commonwealth, 5 S.W.3d 142 (Ky. 1999) (custody requires restraint by police force or authority)
Peacher v. Commonwealth, 391 S.W.3d 821 (Ky. 2013) (riding unrestrained as passenger in detective's vehicle did not create custody)
Beckham v. Commonwealth, 248 S.W.3d 547 (Ky. 2008) (lengthy interview not dispositive; warnings and lack of coercion dispositive)