The State v. Rosas, 340 Ga. App. 49

Penny Ann Rosas was indicted for one count of child molestation and moved to suppress statements she made to a police officer at her front door.
Officer was dispatched to serve an outstanding arrest warrant; he encountered Rosas and the alleged victim’s mother at the door at ~3:30 PM.
The officer asked Rosas, “Do you know why we are here?” Rosas replied she must have touched the child and said she had gotten into bed with him to console him.
The officer then arrested Rosas and booked her; Rosas had not been handcuffed or told she was under arrest at the time of the statement.
Trial court suppressed the statements, finding the officer’s question was designed to elicit incriminating responses and that the statements were custodial, requiring Miranda warnings.
State appealed; Georgia Court of Appeals (after reinstatement/remand from the Supreme Court regarding timeliness) reversed, holding Rosas was not in custody when she spoke so Miranda warnings were not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rosas was "in custody" when she made statements requiring Miranda warnings	Rosas: officer’s question was designed to elicit incriminating statements and the situation was custodial, so Miranda warnings were required	State: no formal arrest or restraint at the time; a reasonable person would not have felt deprived of freedom of action, so Miranda not required	Court held Rosas was not in custody; Miranda warnings were not required and suppression was erroneous

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial-interrogation Miranda rule)
Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (investigative questioning in private residence not necessarily custodial)
State v. Andrade, 298 Ga. 464 (procedural: appeal timeliness for suppression of statements)
State v. Folsom, 286 Ga. 105 (custody inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable person would feel restrained)
Sosniak v. State, 287 Ga. 279 (custody inquiry is objective; subjective views irrelevant)
Hodges v. State, 265 Ga. 870 (suspect status alone does not create custody)
Moses v. State, 264 Ga. 313 (no Miranda entitlement absent custody or significant deprivation of freedom)
Woods v. State, 242 Ga. 277 (questioning outside home not custodial)
Wilburn v. State, 230 Ga. 675 (statements made in yard were noncustodial)
Carroll v. State, 208 Ga. App. 316 (interview in home not custodial)
Hardeman v. State, 252 Ga. 286 (statements made prior to in-custody interrogation are admissible)