People v. Barraza
2013 CO 20
| Colo. | 2013Background
- Barraza was identified as the man who allegedly threatened residents after his friend Guevara’s vehicle-trespass arrest.
- Initial questioning occurred outside Barraza’s home; he was not handcuffed and did not face force or arrest at that time.
- Cahill conducted a short, conversational interview on Barraza’s driveway with multiple officers present.
- Barraza later received Miranda warnings at the police station and signed waivers, after which a second interview occurred.
- The district court suppressed both sets of statements, finding custodial interrogation and taint from the Miranda lapse, but found statements voluntary.
- The court of appeals reversed the suppression, concluding Barraza was not in custody during the first interview and the second interview was not tainted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barraza was in custody for Miranda purposes. | Barraza was seized and not free to leave on the driveway. | Totality of circumstances shows no custodial interrogation. | No custodial interrogation occurred initially. |
| Whether the second, Mirandized statements were admissible despite taint. | Second statements tainted by initial non-Mirandized statements. | Second statements were voluntary and not fruit of taint. | Second statements admissible; taint rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pleshakov, 298 P.3d 228 ( Colo. 2013) (four officers at scene but not custodial under totality of circumstances)
- People v. Klinck, 259 P.3d 489 ( Colo. 2011) (questioning on porch not custodial given brief duration and tone)
- People v. Guthrie, 286 P.3d 530 ( Colo. 2012) (standard for reviewing custody findings on mixed questions of law and fact)
- People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 ( Colo. 2002) (consent-based interview not coercive; Miranda safeguards focus on custodial coercion)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 ( 1977) (consensual interrogation may carry some coercive pressure but need not be custodial)
- People v. Breidenbach, 875 P.2d 879 ( Colo. 1994) (custody determination factors and tone of interrogation)
- People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698 ( Colo. 2001) (totality of circumstances governs custody analysis)
- People v. Howard, 92 P.3d 445 ( Colo. 2004) (interview context not automatically custodial)
- People v. Elmarr, 181 P.3d 1157 ( Colo. 2008) (custody analysis framework in Miranda context)