2017 Ohio 28
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On November 17, 2015, Kettering police were dispatched after a neighbor reported a white male (40s, black leather jacket) looking into a house on Sunray Drive and being followed by the neighbor to Town & Country shopping center.
- Officer Kramer located Daniel Reindel matching the description, yelled for him to stop; Reindel initially did not, then stopped and put his left hand in his front pocket, prompting Kramer to draw his pistol and handcuff him when backup arrived.
- Reindel was told he was being detained ("not under arrest"), searched with consent (small knife found), and placed in the patrol car while officers confirmed the house was occupied; about 10 minutes after initial contact Kramer arrested him for voyeurism and then read Miranda warnings.
- Reindel gave oral statements on the sidewalk (about 45 seconds–1 minute) and later a written statement at the jail; he never asked for an attorney during the encounter.
- Reindel moved to suppress his pre‑Miranda statements as involuntary custodial interrogation; the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest to voyeurism, was convicted and sentenced, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑Miranda statements must be suppressed because Reindel was in custody and subject to interrogation | State: No Miranda required because encounter was not custodial interrogation; questions were innocuous | Reindel: He was handcuffed, not free to leave, and was asked questions likely to elicit incriminating responses before Miranda warnings | Court held Miranda not required: either not custodial interrogation or questions were not interrogation likely to elicit incrimination; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (procedural safeguards required before custodial interrogation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (custody determined by how a reasonable person would perceive their freedom to leave)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 ("interrogation" includes words or actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses)
- State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (Miranda warnings required only for custodial interrogations)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (Miranda obligation not triggered absent formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest)