v. Davis, 2019 CO 84

At ~6:00 a.m. deputies entered Jacob Davis’s parents’ home in response to an alleged sexual assault and awakened him in his basement bedroom.
Deputies questioned Davis intermittently in a basement game room for about 1 hour 25 minutes; no weapons were displayed and he was not handcuffed until a formal arrest at ~7:30 a.m.
During detention deputies supervised Davis’s retrieval of sweatpants, glasses, phone, and a jersey; most conversation was conversational and often noninvestigative.
Davis made inculpatory statements in the basement and moved to suppress them as obtained during custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings.
The trial court granted suppression, finding Davis in custody from the initial contact; the People appealed interlocutorily to the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed: under the totality of the circumstances Davis was not "in custody" for Miranda and the detention did not escalate to a Fourth Amendment arrest.

Issue	People’s Argument	Davis’s Argument	Held
Whether Davis was "in custody" for Miranda purposes during basement questioning	The encounter was an investigatory detention, not custodial; warnings not required	Davis was effectively under arrest from the moment he was awakened and not free to leave, so Miranda warnings were required	Court: Not custodial under the totality of circumstances; reasonable person would not feel deprived of freedom to degree of formal arrest; Miranda not required
Whether the investigatory stop escalated into a Fourth Amendment arrest (de facto arrest) requiring probable cause	Detention length and conduct were reasonably related to investigating sexual-assault allegations and deputies acted diligently; no de facto arrest	The ~85-minute detention, restrictions on movement, and isolation converted the stop into a de facto arrest unsupported by probable cause	Court: Under Rodriguez/Ball factors the detention did not escalate to an arrest; length was justified by investigation and deputies pursued inquiry diligently

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required when suspect is both in custody and subject to interrogation)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (Miranda applies only when custody and interrogation are both present)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody inquiry asks whether a reasonable person would feel deprived of freedom to degree associated with formal arrest)
People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances factors for Miranda custody determinations)
People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997) (factors for when an investigatory stop escalates into an arrest)
People v. Ball, 407 P.3d 580 (Colo. 2017) (applies Rodriguez factors; evaluates diligence and length of detention)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (no rigid time limit for stops; consider law-enforcement purpose and diligence)
Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969) (bedroom questioning at 4 a.m. held custodial where defendant was under arrest)
People v. Breidenbach, 875 P.2d 879 (Colo. 1994) (display of weapons or handcuffs can convert a stop into custody)
People v. Mumford, 270 P.3d 953 (Colo. 2012) (neutral/familiar location and conversational tone weigh against finding custody)