146 N.E.3d 1086
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On April 4, 2018, Detective Troy Cobb and Investigator David Meadows interrogated April Glaze at the Putnam County prosecutor’s office; Cobb had driven Glaze from home and agreed to drive her back afterward.
- Glaze, who is cognitively impaired and dependent on Cobb for transportation, asked ~24 minutes into the interview, “I want to go back home,” but officers continued questioning for about another hour with several breaks before Cobb finally took her home.
- Meadows read Miranda warnings at the start; both officers told Glaze she could stop the questioning and that she was not under arrest, but they also pressured her by accusing her of serious sexual and trafficking offenses and by implying cooperation was necessary to regain custody of her children.
- The State later charged Glaze with multiple felonies; Glaze filed a motion to suppress all statements made during the investigation and raised competency/insanity defenses; the trial court found her competent.
- The trial court granted Glaze’s motion in part, suppressing all statements and any derivative investigation made after she requested to be taken home during the April 4 interrogation.
- The State appealed the suppression ruling under Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2(5); the trial court stayed proceedings pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Glaze) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glaze was in custody when she asked to be taken home (Miranda custody) | Not in custody; officers told her she could stop, she was not handcuffed, interview initially short, and Cobb agreed to take her home later | She was in custody because she was transported to the prosecutor’s office, questioned in a small room under full police control, pressured about regaining custody, and accused of serious crimes | Court held she was in custody when she asked to go home (objective totality of circumstances supported custody) |
| Whether Glaze unequivocally invoked her Miranda right to remain silent and was ignored | Even if custody existed, her comment was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent | Her statement that she wanted to “get this over with” and to “go back home” constituted an unequivocal, unambiguous attempt to end questioning that officers failed to honor | Court held her statement was an unequivocal invocation of the right to stop questioning; statements after that point were correctly suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruiz, 123 N.E.3d 675 (Ind. 2019) (framework for custody inquiry under Miranda and list of relevant objective factors)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda right to counsel and to remain silent)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (custody defined as freedom of movement curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody requires coercive pressures similar to station-house questioning)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1994) (objective custody test and limited role for subjective beliefs)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2011) (child’s age may be relevant to custody if known or apparent)
- Risinger v. State, 137 N.E.3d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (officers must scrupulously honor an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent)
- Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675 (Ind. 2009) (statements of reluctance are not always an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent)
- Clark v. State, 808 N.E.2d 1183 (Ind. 2004) (similar holding on equivocal requests)
- Bean v. State, 973 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (custody found despite assurances of freedom to leave where transport and accusatory questioning occurred)