State v. Moody, 974 N.E.2d 1273

Moody was charged with possession of crack cocaine in an amount over one gram but under five; the charge followed police observations at 904 Wilberforce Place after officers found a baggie described as crack cocaine near Moody's foot.
Officers grabbed Moody, patted him down, and placed him in the back of a cruiser with the door closed, without presenting Miranda warnings at that time.
Inside the cruiser Moody was questioned in a custody setting while officers collected the baggie and identified Moody; he asked what was happening and received a non-informative response.
There was contention about when field-testing occurred; both officers testified differently, but it was undisputed that Moody had not been advised of Miranda rights when the test result was communicated to Troop.
Moody made incriminating statements after the field-test result was communicated, including acknowledging he stood over crack cocaine, and additional statements followed after rights were read.
The trial court suppressed Moody’s statements, concluding they resulted from custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Moody in custody when he made the statements?	Moody was not in custody when he asserted standing over cocaine.	Moody was in custody once seized and detained, triggering Miranda.	Moody was in custody.
Did Moody's statements result from interrogation or spontaneous utterances?	Statements were volunteered, not elicited by interrogation.	Statements were the product of police interrogation.	Not the product of interrogation; spontaneous but not elicited.

State v. Hollowell, 2011-Ohio-1130 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24010) (trial-court factual findings reviewed independently for legal standards)
State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 (8th Dist.1994) (foundation for custody analysis)
State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (2006-Ohio-3255) (custody and Miranda applicability clarified)
State v. Frady, 142 Ohio App.3d 776 (2d Dist.2001) (custody/interrogation standards applied)
In re Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (police communication alone not custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (interrogation includes police conduct likely to elicit response)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (Beheler cited for interrogation standard)
State v. Morgan, 2002 WL 63196 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18985) (appellate standard on suppression review)