State v. Brian L. Halverson, 937 N.W.2d 74

Police received a letter from a Stanley Correctional inmate accusing Brian Halverson of stealing and destroying the inmate’s documents; Officer Matthew Danielson sought to contact Halverson.
Halverson, who was confined on a probation hold at the Vernon County Jail, returned Danielson’s call within ten minutes; the phone call lasted about three to four minutes.
During the call Danielson asked about missing documents and informed Halverson that the inmate claimed to possess two letters in which Halverson admitted the theft; Halverson admitted destroying the documents.
Danielson did not provide Miranda warnings and did not tell Halverson he could terminate the call; Halverson made no request for counsel and did not refuse to speak.
The circuit court granted Halverson’s motion to suppress, applying State v. Armstrong and treating incarceration as per se Miranda custody; the State presented jail standard‑operating‑procedure testimony on reconsideration but the court denied reconsideration.
The State appealed, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Howes v. Fields requires a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances custody analysis and Armstrong’s per se rule is no longer controlling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Halverson)	Held
Whether Armstrong’s per se rule that incarceration equals Miranda custody remains controlling	Howes supersedes Armstrong; custody requires a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry even for inmates	Armstrong remains binding; Wisconsin Constitution may provide greater protection so incarceration is per se custody	Armstrong’s federal‑law per se rule is displaced by Howes; Wisconsin Constitution not read to preserve Armstrong here
Whether Halverson was in Miranda custody during the jail phone call	Under Howes totality test, Halverson was not in custody (short call, voluntary, unrestrained, could hang up)	Halverson was in custody because he was incarcerated, isolated, and placed in a locked program room for the call	Under the totality of circumstances, Halverson was not in custody; Miranda warnings were not required; suppression was reversed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warnings requirement)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (prisoner interrogation custody is a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry; imprisonment alone is not Miranda custody)
State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331 (Wis. 1999) (held incarcerated person per se in Miranda custody; court declined to follow here)
Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (interpreted scope of Miranda for inmate interviews; not read to make imprisonment per se custody)
State v. Knapp, 285 Wis. 2d 86 (Wis. 2005) (on remand: Wisconsin Constitution can in limited circumstances provide greater protection and exclude evidence from intentional Miranda violations)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (failure to Mirandize does not automatically require suppression of physical evidence)
State v. Hanson, 387 Wis. 2d 233 (Wis. 2019) (recognizes Howes’ principle that service of a prison term alone is not Miranda custody)