People v. Pittman
2012 CO 55
| Colo. | 2012Background
- Pittman voluntarily underwent a polygraph at police request; after failing, she made incriminating statements.
- The polygraph examiner did not provide Miranda warnings; after questioning, investigators transferred Pittman to another room for further questioning without warnings.
- Pittman was charged with child abuse and related offenses.
- The trial court suppressed Pittman’s statements, holding they were obtained during custodial interrogation without Miranda advisement.
- The court relied on Algien by focusing on a single factor (failure of the polygraph) to find custody, and did not analyze the totality of circumstances.
- The court of appeals reverses, holding the custody determination requires totality-of-circumstances analysis and remand for proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Pittman in custody for Miranda purposes? | Pittman argues custody existed after polygraph | People contends custody standard was met | Custody not shown under proper standard |
| Did Algien support the trial court’s single-factor custody ruling? | Algien supports custody based on failure of polygraph | Algien relies on multiple factors, not single factor | Algien misapplied; need totality of circumstances |
| Should the suppression order be reversed and remanded for proper findings? | Yes, to apply correct standard | No, current record sufficient | Remanded for appropriate totality-of-circumstances analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Horn, 790 P.2d 816 (Colo.1990) (custody determination requires more than freedom to leave)
- Algien, 180 Colo. 1, 501 P.2d 468 (Colo.1972) (multi-factor approach to custody; not a single-factor test)
- Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Colo.2002) (custody standard involves degree of deprivation of freedom)
- Hughes, 252 P.3d 1118 (Colo.2011) (distinguishes Fourth Amendment 'free to leave' vs. custody analysis)
- Thiret, 685 P.2d 193 (Colo.1984) (totality-of-circumstances framework for custody)
- Johnson, 671 P.2d 958 (Colo.1983) (reiterates need for factual findings to support legal conclusions)
- Elmarr, 181 P.3d 1157 (Colo.2008) (custody determination is mixed law and fact; deference to findings on factual history)