State v. Brian L. Halverson, 953 N.W.2d 847

Brian L. Halverson, then an inmate at Vernon County Jail, returned a call from Officer Matthew Danielson investigating theft/destruction at Halverson's prior prison; during a 3–5 minute telephone conversation Halverson admitted taking and destroying property. No Miranda warnings were given.
When inmates receive calls at Vernon County Jail they may choose to take/return calls; deputies escort inmates to a 15x25-foot community room (visible through glass but not overheard), do not handcuff inmates, and do not record calls.
Halverson moved to suppress his statements on Miranda grounds; the circuit court granted suppression relying on State v. Armstrong (holding incarcerated persons per se in custody for Miranda purposes).
The State appealed; the court of appeals reversed, concluding Armstrong was effectively overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Howes v. Fields and that Halverson was not in Miranda custody under the totality of the circumstances.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: it declined to adopt a Wisconsin-constitutional per se rule treating all incarcerated persons as in Miranda custody and held that Halverson was not in custody under the two-step, totality-of-the-circumstances Miranda test; the suppression ruling was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether incarceration alone renders an individual per se "in custody" for Miranda purposes	State: Follow Howes; no per se rule—custody is a totality inquiry	Halverson: Wisconsin Constitution should adopt a per se rule treating all incarcerated persons as in custody	Court: Declined to adopt per se rule under Wisconsin Constitution; rejected Halverson's request and followed Howes framework
Whether Halverson was "in custody" under Miranda's two-step totality test for his jail phone statement	State: Phone interview was brief, voluntary, optional (he chose to return the call), unrestrained, and terminable by hanging up; not custodial	Halverson: As an incarcerated person he necessarily was in custody and his statements must be suppressed	Court: Under the objective totality test (location, duration, restraints, tone, ability to terminate), Halverson was not in Miranda custody; statements admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established Miranda warnings and custody/interrogation framework)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (rejects per se rule that incarceration equals Miranda custody; endorses totality test)
State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331 (Wis. 1999) (earlier Wisconsin decision holding incarcerated persons per se in custody for Miranda)
State v. Knapp, 285 Wis. 2d 86 (Wis. 2005) (Knapp II) (Wisconsin decision expanding state exclusionary remedy for intentional Miranda violations)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (Miranda is a prophylactic rule that may be broader than the Fifth Amendment itself)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (clarifies freedom-of-movement test is necessary but not sufficient for Miranda custody determination)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (plurality) (held failure to give Miranda warnings does not always require suppression of physical "fruits")