United States v. Stephen Malcolm, 435 F. App'x 417

Malcolm pled guilty to maliciously starting a fire at St. Clair Mall in Frankfort, Kentucky.
He challenged the district court’s denial of suppression of statements from a second interview with ATF and local investigators.
The second interview occurred April 4, 2007 at the ATF Lexington office; Malcolm attended voluntarily and was told he was not under arrest.
During the first hour of the interview, agents repeatedly advised Malcolm he could leave and was not in custody; he made incriminating statements before arrest and Miranda warnings.
After arrest, Malcolm was read his Miranda rights and continued to make statements; he later argued the interview continued after he requested counsel and that prior questions violated Miranda.
Magistrate Judge Todd and the district court held the first hour was non-custodial and Malcolm did not unambiguously request counsel; the appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the first hour of the second interview custodial?	Malcolm contends custodial interrogation required Miranda warnings.	Interrogation occurred in a non-custodial setting and no custody existed.	Not custodial; non-custodial interrogation.
Did Malcolm unambiguously request counsel during interrogation?	Any mention of attorney should trigger right to counsel.	His remark was ambiguous and not an unequivocal request for counsel.	No unambiguous request for counsel.
Did the interrogation continue after an arrest and Miranda rights were given when Malcolm had invoked counsel?	Post-Miranda questioning after invocation was improper.	Interrogation did not violate rights because custodial status and unambiguous request issues foreclose fault here.	Properly continued under holdings; no violation found.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires rights advisement)
Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1994) (Miranda rule applies to custodial contexts)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1977) (noncustodial questioning does not require warnings)
Coomer v. Yukins, 533 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2008) (custody inquiry factors include ability to leave)
Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1983) (informing not under arrest weighs against custody)
Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1995) (two-part custody framework)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (unambiguous request for counsel halts questioning until counsel available)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel does not require cessation)
United States v. Crossley, 224 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2000) (custody determination factors include freedom to terminate interrogation)
United States v. Hinojosa, 606 F.3d 875 (6th Cir. 2010) (factors for determining custody in the Sixth Circuit)
United States v. Swanson, 341 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2003) (custody standard reviewed de novo)