State v. Hieu Tran, 71 A.3d 1201

Hieu Tran was questioned by two detectives in a police cruiser for about one hour regarding an assault and attempted robbery; Miranda warnings were not given; the suppression motion was granted.
Police had prior information from the victim, a witness, a neighborhood observer, and the victim’s friend, linking Tran to a drug-transaction-related assault with a gun; a baseball cap allegedly belonging to Tran was recovered.
Tran arrived home; detectives asked him to meet in the car; interview occurred in the cruiser with two officers in a small space for an hour; his mother and brother were at home nearby.
Detectives failed to tell Tran he was free to leave; they confronted him with evidence and stated they had answers to questions and knew how it went down, prompting incriminating responses.
The detective believed probable cause existed to arrest Tran prior to the interview; Tran was arrested at the end of the interview.
The trial court found a police-dominated atmosphere, custody, and that Miranda warnings were required; the State sought appellate review under 13 V.S.A. § 7403 and V.R.A.P. 5.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tran was in custody requiring Miranda warnings	State argues no custody; Tran argues custodial interrogation.	Tran asserts he was not in custody and freely spoke.	Yes, custody existed; Miranda warnings required.
Whether the trial court erred by considering the officer’s belief of guilt and Tran’s age	State contends those factors are relevant to custody analysis.	Tran contends those factors are improper or irrelevant.	No reversible error; these factors properly informed custody analysis when communicated.
Whether early statements without warnings must be suppressed	State seeks suppression of all statements after custodial setting began.	Tran argues early admissions should be admissible if not yet custodial.	All statements obtained in the interview suppressed due to custodial interrogation without warnings.

State v. Muntean, 2010 VT 88 (2010 VT 88) (factors for custody determination and confrontations with guilt evidence)
State v. Oney, 2009 VT 116 (2009 VT 116) (objective test; not in custody absent arrest-like restraints)
State v. Willis, 145 Vt. 459 (1985) (free-to-leave inquiry as part of custody analysis)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) (not in custody when told not under arrest and free to leave)
Garbutt, 173 Vt. 277 (2001) (custody determined by totality; admission of guilt not required for custody)
Pontbriand, 2005 VT 20 (2005 VT 20) (not custody where officers inform not under arrest and not required to speak)
Comes, 144 Vt. 103 (1984) (non-custody where questioning occurred outside with minimal coercion)
Lancto, 155 Vt. 168 (1990) (questioning in cruiser not inherently custodial)
Beheler (California v. Beheler), 463 U.S. 1125 (1983) (ultimate Beheler test for custody: arrest or restraint degree)
United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343 (1990) (impact of focus of investigation on custody perception)
United States v. Ali, 86 F.3d 275 (1996) (second circuit custody factors and coercive environment)