People of Michigan v. John Edward Barritt
333206
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On May 4, 2015 deputies executed a search warrant at Amy Wienski’s home; John Barritt (her boyfriend) arrived there and was asked to go to the Calhoun County sheriff’s office for an interview. He was transported in the back of a marked patrol car.
- At the substation Barritt was questioned by Detectives Gandy and Hinkley for about 90 minutes without Miranda warnings; he was never told he was free to leave and was not handcuffed until after the interview.
- The interview included confrontational accusatory questioning, repeated denials by Barritt, two requests for counsel by Barritt, and the entry of a K-9 officer who made statements implying coercive consequences.
- Near the end of the 90‑page transcript an officer told Barritt he was not under arrest only after Barritt requested an attorney; shortly thereafter Barritt was handcuffed and transported to another department.
- Barritt moved to suppress his statements on Miranda/custody grounds; the trial court granted the motion relying in part on MCL 763.7’s definition of “place of detention.” The prosecution appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barritt was in custody for Miranda purposes during the stationhouse interview | Not custody — like Mathiason: the interview was voluntary, doors unlocked, not handcuffed, and he was told he could end it | Custody — transported in patrol car, questioned in a police facility, not told he was free to leave, confrontational tactics, requests for counsel ignored, later handcuffed | Court held Barritt was in custody; statements suppressed (affirmed) |
| Whether MCL 763.7(f) (definition of “place of detention”) alone converts any stationhouse interview into custodial interrogation | Police: statutory definition shows interview location supports non-custody conclusion; Mathiason controls | Defense: being at a station is a factor but not dispositive; totality of circumstances controls | Court rejected treating MCL 763.7(f) as dispositive; statute is relevant but Miranda custody depends on totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (questioning at stationhouse does not automatically equal custody)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (custody determination is an objective totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (Miranda custody assessed by how a reasonable person would perceive freedom to leave)
- Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (conversations with covert agents do not implicate Miranda because they are not police-dominated interrogations)
- People v. Mendez, 225 Mich. App. 381 (571 N.W.2d 528) (distinguishable Michigan precedent where noncustody found when defendant voluntarily came, drove himself, and was told he was not under arrest)