State v. Tingey, 368 P.3d 467

In Feb 2011 police executed a search warrant at Tingey’s BYU apartment after an IP address there was linked to child pornography; officers (some uniformed) found Tingey asleep and woke him for questioning.
Tingey accompanied officers to a second bedroom he suggested; the door remained open and other officers came and went while two officers (one BYU sergeant and Deputy O’Hara) conducted the interview with an ironing board placed between Tingey and the officers.
During the roughly one-hour interview officers made accusatory statements and Sergeant Burr warned Tingey they could “destroy everything that’s going on in your life” and urged him to be honest; officers also told Tingey he did not have to talk and twice reassured him he was not under arrest.
Tingey briefly left the room to say goodbye to his wife during the interview and was not handcuffed or physically restrained; several officers searched his computer elsewhere in the apartment during the interview.
Tingey moved to suppress his statements as the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings; the trial court found he was not in custody and denied suppression.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the totality of circumstances (site, focus, objective indicia, length/form) weighed against a custodial finding so Miranda warnings were not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tingey was in custody during the interview such that Miranda warnings were required	Tingey: interview was custodial—threatening statements, many armed officers, physical blockade (ironing board), accusatory tone, and length curtailed his freedom	State: interview occurred in Tingey’s home, door open, officers said he was not under arrest, he left to see wife, not handcuffed, few objective indicia of arrest	Court: Not custodial. Balancing the four factors, freedom to leave and open-door, lack of physical restraint, and assurances outweighed threats and accusatory questioning

State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (defining custody as a mixed question and standards for review)
State v. Levin, 156 P.3d 178 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (discussing custody factors and objective indicia of arrest)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) (custody depends on objective circumstances, not subjective views)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (freedom of action curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest defines custody)
Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983) (articulating four-factor custody analysis)
Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976) (interviews at home generally not custodial absent movement restraint)
State v. Doran, 158 P.3d 1140 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (police must give pre-interrogation warnings when in custody)
State v. Worthington, 970 P.2d 714 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (home interviews not custodial if freedom of movement not hindered)
State v. Heywood, 357 P.3d 565 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (discussing relevance of disclosed focus of investigation)