*1 Before F LAUM , B ARRETT , and S T . E VE , Circuit Judges . S T . E VE , Circuit Judge . Fоr nearly a week Christy Lentz feigned ignorance as she pretended to help investigators lo- cate her missing father. Officers soon discovered the father’s decaying body hidden at the office building the two shared, *2 and all signs pointed to L entz as the murderer. Lentz, with her young daughter in tow, voluntarily accompanied officers to the police station under the pretense of follow-up questioning for the missing persons investigation . For the first hour and a half, officers asked general questions, like when and where she last saw her father, to commit Lentz to her story. They then took a cigarette break. When the interview resumed, the tone changed. The o fficers read Lentz her Miranda rights and confronted her with the mounting evidence against her. Over the next four hours, Lentz slowly confessed to shooting her father.
In the state trial court, Lentz moved to suppress her videotaped confession but the court denied her motion. She proceeded to trial , where the confession was admitt ed into evidence, and a jury found hеr guilty of first -degree murder. The Illinois Appellate C ourt affirmed the conviction on direct review. Lentz then tried her hand at state postconviction proceedings but was unsuccessful.
Now on federal habeas review, Lentz claims the interro- gation violated her constitutional rights in two ways: that she was “in custody” during the pre- portion of the inter- view, and that her confession was involuntary. Because our review is deferential and the state court’s decision with re- spect to both issues was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. *3 3
I. Background
We take the facts from the Illinois Appellate C ourt’s opin-
ion,
People v. Lentz
,
A. General Background
Lentz’s father, Michael Lentz, Sr., owned his own busi- ness, Industrial Pneumatics Supply—a pneumatic tools dis- tributor—in Villa Park, Illinois. Lentz had worked for her fa- ther since she graduated high school. She first began as a sec- retary but over time her responsibilities at the business in- creased to include handling customer service, paying bills, balancing the checkbook, and paying taxes. At the time of the incident, the company had only one other employee besides Lentz and her father, a part-time secretary. According to Lentz, she was in the process of taking over the business from her father because he wanted to retire.
On June 9, 2006, Lentz and her sister, Jill Baker, asked the police to check on their father because they had not seen or heard from him since late May. The police opened a missing persons investigation and interviewed Lentz on June 14, 2006. A week later, on June 21, 2006, the police stoppеd by the busi- ness’s office building. The door was locked and there was a handwritten sign saying that the business was closed due to a family emergency. The officers, however, noticed a smell of decomposition. They obtained a search warrant and searched the business, where they discovered Mr. Lentz’s dead body in a wrapped and taped bundle head-down in a plastic bin. It also appeared that there had been unsuccessful attempts to burn the body in the bin.
Following this discovery, the police then went to the house of Chuck Minauskas, Lentz’s boyfriend, and arrived just be- fore 10:00 p.m. on June 21st, where they found Lentz, her seven-year-old daughter Taylor, and Minauskas. Lentz agreed to speak with the officers down at the Villa Park police station and the officers then transported all three there. Two detectives questioned Lentz over the course of approximately five and a half hours, the details of which we discuss below. They videotaped the entire interview. (A third officer was in the room operating the video camera.) In short, after about two hours of questioning, shortly before 2:00 a.m., Lentz ad- mitted to killing her father. Over the next three and a half hours, until about 5:30 a.m., the detectives elicited more de- tails about the shooting and cover-up. At the conclusion of her statement, Lentz was arrested and charged with murder.
Before trial, Lentz moved to suppress her videotaped statement. The Illinois trial court heard evidence and argu- ments related to the motion over the course of several days *5 between May and December 2008. The court denied the mo- tion. Lentz then went to trial, during which the prosecution played the videot aped confession in full for the jury. The jury found Lentz guilty of first-degree murder, and the court sen- tenced her to fifty years’ imprisonment. On direct appeal to the state appellate court , Lentz challenged the trial court’s de- nial of her motion to suppress.
B. The Illinois Appellate Court’s Decision
Lentz made the two arguments on direct appeal that she
raises on federal collateral review: (1) that the circumstances
in which she gave her statement violated
Miranda v. Arizona
,
1. The interrogation
The Illinois Appellate Court undertook an extensive re- view of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and the entire videotaped interrogation. Its opinion was thor- ough and detailed. We have reviewed the video for ourselves as well, and add some facts or details where we deem helpful.
Villa Park police officer Tiffany Wayda was one of the of-
ficers assigned to the missing persons investigation for
Lentz’s father, Michael Lentz, Sr. She testified that on June 21,
2006, between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., she and a fellow detective
went to the father’s business, where Lentz worked, looking
for Lentz to get some phone records. No one was at the busi-
ness, but аfter walking around the back of the building they
*6
“noticed the smell of decomposition and saw flies near a win-
dow.”
Lentz I
,
Jordan Anderson is a Wood Dale police officer. On June
21, 2006, he was told to go to the Villa Park police station,
where he and other officers were assigned to find Minauskas,
Lentz’s boy friend. Anderson and three other officers drove
together to Minauskas’s home, while two other officers drove
separately. Both cars were unmarked and all six officers were
dressed in plain clothes, albeit with police identification. An-
derson testified that the officers arrived at Minauskas’s home
at about 9:52 p.m. Upon arrival, officers encountered Minaus-
kas, Lentz, and thеir seven-year-old daughter, Taylor, stand-
ing in the driveway. Anderson and another officer ap-
proached Lentz, and Anderson testified that he said, “Hi, Ms.
Lentz. My name is Detective Anderson. I ’m from the major
crimes task force, and we ’ d like to talk to you in reference to
the missing persons case that we re investigating.”
Lentz I
,
The appellate court noted that the witnesses all “agreed that there was no ‘cage or secure divider between the back and front seats of either of the police cars.” Id . ¶ 11. Further- more, “[a]t no point did the police handcuff anyone, use phys- ical force on anyone, or raise their voices.” Id . “The officers did not say that anyone was under arrest.” Id .
At the station, Wayda and fellow Villa Park police officer Todd Kubish interviewed Lentz. There was a third, unnamed officer in the room who operated the video recorder. “All of the officers were in civilian dress and none of them displayed their weapons at any point during the questioning.” Id . ¶ 12. The video picks up with Lentz already talking, which Kubish explained was because the video operator was trying to get the recorder started and that the only discussion missed was Wayda introducing Kubish to Lentz.
The appellate court characterized Lentz’s demeanor at the start of the tape as “relaxed and helpful.” . ¶ 13. They began to discuss the last time that Lentz saw her father and her fa- ther’s business in general. She described her role as handling “a little bit of everything,” including shipping, receiving, the books, and customer services. . She stated that her father re- cently made her the president of the company and that he wanted to retire soon.
At this point, now about five minutes into the interview, Kubish stopped the conversation and told Lentz that he had forgotten to ask her something. The following discussion then took place:
Q. [Kubish] Tonight, how did you get here today? A. [Lentz] They transported us here.
…
Q. And the officers asked you if you would be willing to come in here?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You weren ’ t forced to come in here or anything like that?
A. No. Q. Nobody dragged you out of the house?
A. No. Q. Nobody threatened you to come in here?
A. No.
Q. And you know why we ’ re here, right? We ’ re here to talk about your father?
A. Right.
Q. That he ’ s missing, correct?
A. Right.
Q. I just wanted to make sure. A. No, that s fine. That ’ s great.
Lentz I
,
Q. [Kubish] Okay, good. All right. So everything ’ s okay?
A. [Lentz] My daughter needs to go to bed soon. Q. Okay. [laughs] I ’ m sure she ’ s being very occupied. A. I m sure.
Id . The appellate court’s transcription seems to indicate that Kubish laughed, but a review of the video reflects that it is Lentz who actually laughs after she says that her daughter needs to go to bed soon. We further note that, when Lentz re- plies “I’m sure,” she is smiling and does not have a sarcastic tone.
Kubish then resumed the questioning, “asking open- ended questions in a non-confrontational manner.” Id . ¶ 16. The appellate court noted parenthetically that Lentz “laughed periodically throughout the first two hours of questioning, of- ten in a manner indicating rueful agreement with what the officers said.” Id . The interview continued for approximately an hour and a half. They discussed her father’s personality, his personal life, the state of the business, and Lentz’s activi- ties since her father went missing.
At 12:30 a.m., Kubish paused the conversation, asked for the time, and then announced the time and date (it was nоw June 22nd) and stated that they needed to switch the tape so they were going to take a break. Lentz then asked, “Is there any way that I could take my daughter home soon to put her to bed? Because it’s kind of late.” . ¶ 20. Kubish responded, “Well, we ’re just trying to get through all this now, so —” and then the tape stopped. .
The break lasted for thirty-two minutes, during which time Lentz went to the bathroom and went outside to have a cigarette. “Kubish and Wayda, who were both smokers, ac- companied [Lentz] outside and [Lentz] smoked a couple of cigarettes,” though it was “not clear if either of the officers also smoked a cigarette during the break.” . When the tape resumed, Kubish announced that it was now 1:02 a.m. and also noted for the record that Lentz saw her family members while outside:
Q. [Kubish] And when you were outside you saw Mike, your brother Mike?
A. [Lentz] My brother Mike and Howard.
Q. And Howard is your— A. Brother-in-law.
Q. And he’s married to?
A. My sister Jill.
Q. Jill. Okay. And you saw your daughter down there sleeping?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. On the park bench. Getting bit by mosquitos, yes. Q. [Wayda] Is she sleeping outside?
A. Yes.
Q. I’m sure she’ll go back inside when they go back in- side. Does Howard smoke?
A. Yes.
Q. So they’ll probably bring her b ack inside.
Kubish then resumed the questioning, asking about Lentz’s
presence at the business earlier that day. A few minutes later,
at 1:07 a.m., Kubish switched gears and took out a
Miranda
waiver form.
Lentz I
,
Both officers then questioned Lentz in a “slightly more confrontational manner” regarding various inconsistencies and discrepancies in stories, phone records, bank records, and conversations with other witnesses. Lentz I , 2011 IL App (2d) 100448-U, ¶ 22. Wayda commented that it was difficult to get a straight story from Lentz because “nothing matches” any of the actual documents the officers had collected. At 1:39 a.m., the officers took a quick one-minute break to step out of the room to get some additional information from another room. “When they returned, Kubish said that they had spoken with the secretary, who told them that she had not been at work since May 15th, and that [Lentz] had been calling her and tell- ing her not to come in because [Lentz] was doing inventory and her father was crabby.” . ¶ 23. Kubish then began to press Lentz about her statement that she had not noticed an- ything “strange or unusual” at the office when she was there earlier in the day—hinting at the smell of decomposition. . Lentz played dumb and pretended not to know what the *12 officers were talking about, but she “could not explain the air fresheners and the white powder all over the floor, or what they were for.” Id . Wayda repeatedly pleaded with Lentz to tell the officers “what’s going on.”
The officers took another one-minute break at 1:47 a.m. to change the videotape. When the interview resumed at 1:48 a.m., “Kubish and Wayda began pressing the defendant again to tell them what was going on” and why the office smelled the way it did. Id . ¶ 24. The officers also began asking if some- one else was involved in what happened. Kubish also sug- gested that “maybe it wasn’t [her] fault” and asked if her fa- ther “did something to [her].” Lentz “became emotional and reflective.” Id . “She said that her father had pulled a gun on her at work a few weeks ago, and had hit her in the past. He had come to her house and said he would put her in jail and beat her; she didn t know why. Other people did not know about it.” . After the officers again asked her to tell them what was going on, Lentz “hesitated and said that she would probably never be able to see her daughter again.” . Both officers immediately told Lentz that that was not true. This is the exchange that took place:
Wayda: … Get this weight lifted off of you. Tell us what happened.
Lentz: I’m probably never going to be able to see my daughter again.
Kubish: That’s not correct.
Wayda: No, that’s not true.
Kubish: That’s not true. *13 Lentz then told the police that her father came at her with a gun and she pushed him and he shot himself, and she “freaked out.” This admission came approximаtely forty-five minutes after the officers had given her the warnings and about two hours and twenty-five minutes into the inter- view. She then related the events leading up to the fight and how it occurred. According to Lentz, she had not told her brother or sister or Minauskas. No one else knew.
The officers expressed disbelief that Lentz could have done all that was done with the body by herself, but Lentz insisted that no one else was involved and no one else knew. She had driven her father ’ s truck to Kenosha and left it by the side of the road, and took the bus back. The gun was in her dad ’ s desk drawer. The officers continued to ask more ques- tions to draw out more details, but Lentz was reluctant to speak. She mostly stared down at the table, holding her head in one of her hands, and only gave short verbal responses. Af- ter a few minutes, Kubish told Lentz that he knew she felt bad about what happened and that if she did not do anything wrong, there was nothing for her to hide. He also reminded her that she initially called the police for help:
A. [Lentz] I know, but what about my daughter? Q. [Kubish] Obviously, we ’ re going to take care of your daughter. We ’ re going to do the right thing. But you need to do the right thing. I can ’ t tell you what ’ s going to happen with your daughter until you tell me what happened with your dad. I mean turn, look at me. A. I m obviously not going to be able to see her. Q. No, you are going to be able to see her. Once we get this straightened out, you can see your daughter. *14 A. I can ’ t go home with her.
Q. Well, we need to know what happened. Listen, look at me. You can t look at me right now because you ’ re not being completely honest with us.
Lentz I
,
2. Custodial interrogation
In determining whether Lentz was “in custody” at the time she gave her statement, because Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation, the appellate court considered the fol- lowing relevant circumstances:
(1) the location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning; (2) the number of police officers present during the interrogation; (3) the presence or absence of family and friends of the individual; (4) any indicia of a formal arrest procedure, such as the show of weap- ons or force, physical restraint, booking or fingerprint- ing; (5) the manner by which the individual arrived at the place of questioning; and (6) the age, intelligence, and mental makeup of the accused.
Lentz I
,
• First Factor: location, time, length, mood, and mode of the questioning. “The questioning took place at a police station, in a conference room in a portion of the building not open to the general public.” Id . But the appellate court found that because Lentz “knew that the police wanted to talk to Minauskas at the same time and would want to do so sepa- rately, the location of the questioning would not be especially suggestive of custody to a reasonable person.” Id . The time also did not weigh in favor of custody even though the questioning took place during the late evening and early morning hours because there was “no indication” that “the police chose the time in an attempt to make the defendant more vulnerable.” Id . Rather, the questioning took place “as soon after the discovery of the body as practicable.” . As for the mood and mode of the questioning, the appellate court, like the trial court, placed “great weight on these factors” and found that “both the tone of the questions being asked and the defendant s relaxed demeanor demonstrated a cooperative and voluntary interview rather than a custodial interrogation.” .
• Second Factor: number of police officers present during the interrogation. The appellate court found that this factor was “neutral” because three officers was a “usual number for interviews” and “they *16 were in civilian clothes with their weapons secured in their customary holsters.” Id . ¶ 27. Further, only two of the officers questioned Lentz while the third officer operated the videotape recorder.
• Third Factor: presence or absence of family and friends of the individual. The appellate court did not address or weigh this factor.
• Fourth Factor: indicia of a formal arrest procedure. Simply, “none of the indicia of a formal arrest were involved, such as the show of weapons or force, physical restraint, booking or fingerprinting.” Id . • Fifth Factor: manner by which the individual ar- rived at the place of questioning. This factor fa- vored a finding that Lentz was in custody because “the presence of six police officers at Minauskas ’ home, four of whom accompanied the defendant back to the station, might lead a reasonable person in the defendant s position to conclude that he or she did not have a choice whether to go with the police officers.” . ¶ 28.
• Sixth Factor: the age, intelligence, and mental makeup of the accused. This factor favored the finding of a noncustodial interview because Lentz “was not a minor and does not appear to have had any difficulty in understanding the nature of the questioning.” . ¶ 27. Although Lentz argued on appeal that she was tired because she had been “awake since 4:45 a.m. the previous morning” and “had been in the bar for some hours that after- noon,” based on the videotape Lentz, “while *17 occasionally appearing tired, was alert and ori- ented throughout the questioning and did not show any impairment to her ability to understand the proceedings.” Id .
In the end, three factors weighed in favor of finding a noncus- todial interview, one factor weighed in favor of finding Lentz was in custody, and one factor was neutral.
Lentz, however, emphasized that the officers never told her that she was free to leave. The appellate court found the argument unpersuasive in this case because “the videotape shows the defendant agreeing with Kubish that she had vol- untarily consented to come to the station and answer ques- tions.” Id . ¶ 29. There was “no[] need to reassure the defend- ant that she was free to go: the defendant clearly viewed her- self as being in control of her own presence at the station.” Id . Similarly, Lentz’s comment before the first break that she would need to take her daughter home soon “was delivered in a tone indicating that she was telling the police that she could not stay all night and would eventually have to leave— a communication that was consistent with a belief that she re- mained free to terminate the interview.” Id . Lentz’s “ manner throughout the pre- portion of the question[ing] was that of someone voluntarily cooperating with the police in an effort to locate her missing father.” Id . “Finally, we do not view the fact that Kubish and Wayda accompanied the de- fendant outside while she smoked to be suggestive of cus- tody; the police testified that otherwise the defendant could have gotten lost or locked out.” . And Lentz’s demeanor re- mained “relaxed and cooperative even after the break, sug- gesting that she was not intimidated by Kubish ’ s and Wayda s presence outside while she smoked.” .
Thus, “viewing all of the factors together” and “taking all of the circumstances into account,” the appellate court con- cluded that Lentz “was not in custody during the pre- Miranda portion of the questioning.” Id . Therefore, “the failure of the police to warn her of her constitutional rights at the outset of the questioning did not violate Miranda and her statements were not subject to suppression on that basis. ” Id .
3. Voluntariness of the confession
Lentz’s second argument wa s that, even if the questioning
did not violate
Miranda,
the court nonetheless should have
suppressed her inculpаtory statements because they were in-
voluntary.
Lentz I
,
Lentz argued that “the police impermissibly used her de- sire to take her daughter home to coerce her into confessing to accidentally causing her father to shoot himself.” Id . ¶ 33. She asserted that Kubish and Wayda “repeatedly referred to her daughter in encouraging her to ‘tell us what happened ’ and ‘be honest. ’” . She argued that the “cumulative effect of this use of Taylor s presence at the police station, coupled with her tiredness and the length of the interrogation, wore her dоwn to the point that her will was overborne and her confession was not voluntary.” .
“A close look at the record refutes this argument.” Id . ¶ 34. During the pre- portion of the questioning, Lentz’s daughter Taylor was mentioned three times:
• The first mention occurred shortly after question- ing began, when Kubish asked whether the defend- ant needed food, water, a bathroom break, or any- thing else. At that point, the defendant told Kubish that Taylor would need to go to bed soon. Her tone of voice on the videotape indicates that she was ad- vising the detectives that she was willing to coop- erate and answer questions regarding her missing father but she would eventually need to get Taylor home to bed.
• The second mention occurred an hour and a half later, after Kubish said that they would need to take a break to change the tape. The defendant asked whether she could take Taylor home “soon” to put her to bed, indicating that she would like to wrap up the questioning at some point in the near future although not necessarily right then. Kubish did not respond directly, stating that they werе “just trying to get through all this now.” The defendant did not say anything further about Taylor.
• The police and the defendant then went outside for a half-hour break. Immediately after the break, Ku- bish made a record of the break, noting that while she was outside the defendant saw her daughter asleep and other family members nearby. The *20 defendant agreed, but voiced a concern that Taylor was being bitten by mosquitos. Wayda reassured her that the other family members would bring Taylor back inside when they were done smoking. Id . In each of these three instances, it was Lentz who brought up her daughter and the officers responded only indirectly.
Next, about five minutes after the smoke break, Kubish read Lentz her Miranda rights and she signed the waiver form. Approximately forty-five minutes after receiving the Miranda warnings, Lentz stated, “You know, I ’ m probably never going to be able to see my daughter again.” Id . ¶ 35. “Kubish and Wayda both immediately responded, ‘that ’ s not true. ’ ” Id . This is then the point where Lentz first stated that her father had come at her with a gun and she had pushed him away and that he had shot himsеlf as he fell. “Between the time that the defendant received the warnings and the time she expressed concern about seeing Taylor as she was preparing to tell the police how her father was shot, the defendant did not indicate that she was concerned about Taylor in any way or wished to see her.” Id . ¶ 35.
The questioning continued, with Kubish and Wayda “re- peatedly suggest[ing] that the defendant, who was small in stature, had help from others, possibly her brother or Minaus- kas, in handling her father s body and disposing of the truck near Kenosha.” . ¶ 36. As the officers “continued to press the defendant hard on this point, urging her to tell them the full story and be truthful,” Lentz then asked Kubish what would happen with her daughter. . Kubish responded “that they would take care of her daughter and do the right thing, but that he could not tell her what was going to happen with *21 Taylor long-term until she told him what happened with her father.” Id . “After that, Kubish and Wayda referred to the de- fendant ’ s concern for Taylor more often—a total of eight more times—in urging the defendant to give them a full аnd truth- ful account.” Id . “Although the defendant appeared increas- ingly tired and stressed during the remaining questioning, at no point did she change her account of any of the significant details of the story that she had told the officers.” Id .
Therefore, the appellate court concluded that “[t]his rec- ord does not support the defendant ’ s argument that her state- ment was the product of police coercion relating to whether she could see Taylor or take her home.” Id . ¶ 37. To the con- trary, when Lentz commented about Taylor having to go to bed soon, “the police reassured the defendant that Taylor was being cared for.” Id . And when Lentz expressed fear that she would never see Taylor again—immediately before making her first inculpatory statement—“the officers unanimously told her that was not true.” Id . “Thus, there was no coercive use of Taylor ’ s presence or the defendant ’ s concern for her prior to her confession that she was involved in her father ’ s shooting and attеmpted to cover up his death.” .
Finally, the appellate court made it a point that it “do[es] not condone the officers later statements that they could not tell the defendant what would happen to Taylor until the de- fendant had provided a full and truthful statement, the de- fendant has not identified any manner in which those state- ments caused her to change her story or provide any substan- tial new information.” . Thus, the court found that Lentz’s statements were voluntarily and freely given.
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the state trial court. . ¶ 48. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Lentz’s petition for leave to appeal.
C. State Court Postconviction Proceedings
Following her direct appeal, Lentz filed a petition for relief
pursuant to the Post–Conviction Hearing Act (Act), 725 ILCS
5/122–1.
See Lentz II
,
The issues raised in her state postconviction proceed- ings—ineffective assistance of counsel—are not at issue in this habeas appeal and we say no more about them.
D. Federal Habeas Proceedings
Having exhausted her state court remedies, Lentz then turned to federal court and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In her petition, Lentz raised two claims: (1) the introduction of her videotaped statement at trial violated her Fifth and Fourteenth Amend- ment rights; and (2) her trial attorney was ineffective.
On the first issue, the district court found that the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision that she was not in custody during the pre- Miranda portion of the questioning was reasonable and that “state court thoroughly applied the general, multi- factor custody test to Lentz s case. At the very least, its decision was reasonable.” The district court also concludеd *23 23 that the appellate court reasonably applied federal law when it determined that her statement was voluntary. On the inef- fective assistance of trial counsel claim, the district court also found that the state court reasonably applied Strickland and that it did not make any unreasonable determination of the facts.
The district court denied a certificate of appealability. Lentz filed a notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of appealability, which we granted only with respect to her claim that “the admission of her videotaped statement into evidence might have violated her constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
II. Discussion
Lentz presents two issues on appeal, both concerning her videotaped statements. First, Lentz argues that she was in custody prior to her Miranda warning and therefore should have been read her rights before any questioning. And sec- ond, she asserts that her statements were not made voluntar- ily. With respeсt to both arguments, Lentz contends that the state court erred because its decision was contrary to clearly established federal law. [2]
We review the district court’s decision de novo, but our
habeas review is otherwise significantly limited.
Schmidt v.
Foster
,
“[W]hen the last state court to decide a prisoner ’ s federal
claim explains its deсision on the merits in a reasoned opin-
ion,” this presents a “straightforward inquiry” for the federal
habeas court.
Wilson v. Sellers
,
In our narrow review, we conclude that the Illinois Appel- late Court did not unreasonably apply established United States Supreme Court precedent and did not make any unrea- sonable determination of the facts.
A. Custodial Interrogation
The Fifth Amendment, which applies to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment,
Malloy v. Hogan
, 378 U.S. 1, 6
(1964), provides that “[n]o person … shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const.
amend. V. To protect a suspect’s Fifth Amendment right from
the “inherently compelling pressures” of being questioned
while in custody, the Supreme Court in
Miranda
held that “the
prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the de-
fendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safe-
guards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimina-
tion.”
Miranda v. Arizona
,
The most basic question of the “in custody” determination
is whether given the “ objective circumstances of the interro-
gation,”
Stansbury v. California
, 511 U.S. 318, 322–23 (1994)
(per curiam), a “reasonable person [would] have felt he or she
*26
was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave,”
Thompson v
.
Keohane
,
Furthermore, under § 2254(d)(1) habeas review, “the
range of reasonable judgment can depend in part on the na-
ture of the relevant rule.”
Yarborough v. Alvarado
,
Lentz contends that “at the point that [she] and her daugh- ter were transported to the station, the objective circum- stances indicated she was under arrest and not free to termi- nate her encounter with police.” She focuses on the number of officers who arrived at Minauskas’s home (s ix) and who drove her and her daughter to the police station (four). At the station, the officers separated Lentz from her daughter and *27 placed her in a “non-public room.” Two officers questioned her while a third officer videotaped the interview. She asserts that when she “asked permission to take Taylor home, the of- ficers avoided her request.” And while at the station she was “accompanied at all times,” including “by multiple officers when she went outside to smoke.” According to Lentz, a rea- sonable person would not have felt free to terminate the in- terview. These were all factors, though, that the appellate court expressly took into account and found that, on balance, did not make the interview custodial. That was not an unrea- sonable application of .
She also alleges that the Illinois Appellate Court “com-
pletely failed to take into account the fact that the officers did
not allоw [Lentz] to drive herself to the station; that the offic-
ers did not allow her to make arrangements for her seven-
year- old daughter’s care; and that when she arrived at the sta-
tion she was separated from Minauskas and, more im-
portantly, her daughter.” This characterization does not do
justice to the court’ s opinion. The appellate court discussed in
detail all of the relevant facts surrounding the interview in its
background discussion.
See Carter v. Thompson
,
[Officer Anderson] asked the defendant to come to the police station with him so that they could talk to her there. The defendant said fine, but she would need to bring her daughter. Anderson agreed and offered the defendant a ride to the police station, saying that they would bring her back when they were done. The *28 defendant did not display any hesitation in accompa- nying them to the policе station.
Lentz I , 2011 IL App (2d) 100448-U, ¶ 10. To say on habeas review that the state court failed to take into account certain facts that the court specifically acknowledged in its opinion strains credulity. We have no reason to doubt that the Illinois Appellate Court adequately considered all of the relevant facts and circumstances in its final custodial analysis, repeat- ing only those that it deemed necessary.
Though Lentz may disagree with the state court’s weigh-
ing of certain facts, the highly deferential habeas review does
not permit a federal court to conduct its own independent in-
quiry and reweigh factors as a de novo matter. “The issue is
not whether feder al judges agree with the state court decision
or even whether the state court decision was correct.”
Dassey
,
877 F.3d at 302. The “only question that matters under
§ 2254(d)(1) ” is whether the state court’s decision is contrary
to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly estab-
lished federal law.
Lockyer v. Andrade
,
B. Voluntariness of the Confession
The Fourteenth Amendment ’s guarantee of fundamental
fairness forbids the admission of an involuntary confession
into evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Miller v. Fenton
,
Lentz maintains that the officers used her concern for her daughter as an interrogation tactic to coerce her confession, thus rendering it involuntary. The Illinois Appellate Court’s determination that her confession was voluntary, she argues, is contrary to Lynumn v. Illinois , 372 U.S. 528 (1963). In Lynumn , the defendant confessed “only аfter the police had told her that state financial aid for her infant children would be cut off, and her children taken from her, if she did not ‘co- operate.’ ” . at 534. The Court held that it was “clear” that *30 these threats, delivered while the police officers encircled the defendant, produced an “impellingly coercive effect” that made the confession involuntary. Id . at 534–35.
Recently, we addressed a similar habeas appeal, wherein
the defendant alleged that her confession was involuntary be-
cause the police made comments about keeping custody of
her children.
Janusiak v. Cooper
,
Turning to Lentz’s case, at the threshold the Illinois Ap-
pellate Court’s ruling is not contrary to
Lynumn
. Unlike
Lynumn
, no officer here suggested that Lentz’s daughter
would be “taken away” unless she confessed to the crime.
Even under Lentz’s own characterization of the facts—that
“the detectives refused [her] repeated attempts to make ar-
rangements for the proper care of her daughter”—these tac-
tics still are not similar to those employed in
Lynumn
because
the officers did not condition the custody or care of the child
on cooperation and did not make explicit coercive threats.
Thus, the state court’s decision is not contrary to
Lynumn
*31
because Lentz’s case is distinguishable on reasonable
grounds.
See Janusiak
,
The appellate court’s decision was also not an unreasona- ble application of Lynumn tо the officers’ comments about Lentz’s daughter. At the outset, before Lentz confessed, the court noted that when Lentz initially expressed that her daughter needed to go to bed the officers “reassured [Lentz] that Taylor was being cared for” and that both officers imme- diately told Lentz it was “not true” when she lamented she would never see her daughter again. Lentz I , 2011 IL App (2d) 100448-U, ¶ 37. The state court’s find ing that these pre-con- fession comments were not coercive is consistent with the Lynumn line of cases.
After Lentz first confessed, though, she again asked what
would happen to her daughter and Kubish told Lentz “that
they would take care of her daughter and do the right thing,
but that he could not tell her what was going to happen with
Taylor long-term until she told him what happened with her
father.”
Lentz I
,
Following that disconcerting statement above, the officers referred to Len tz’s concern for her daughter “more often —a total of eight more times.” . ¶ 36. The state court carefully reviewed and evaluated all of those comments in its opinion but found that none of these refеrences were coercive in na- ture. Though Lentz attempts to frame some of the comments as “expressly condition[ing] Taylor’s wellbeing” on Lentz telling the officers what they wanted to hear, that is not a fair reading of those statements. The officers pleaded with Lentz to tell them the truth and told Lentz to “think about” her daughter. The police are not forbidden from talking about a suspect’s child and t he officers ’ generalized statements here fall squarely within bounds of permissible familial commen- tary: “When the suspect raises the matter, a police officer can avoid a later accusation of impermissible exploitation by avoiding the question with a truthful statement (e.g., ‘ I don’t know what will happen to your kids ).” Janusiak , 937 F.3d at 891.
We think that a review of the videotaped interrogation
readily demonstrates that the officers did not leverage Lentz’s
daughter to compel her confession. But we need not even go
that far. “When reviewing state-court decisions, the deferen-
tial standard of § 2254(d) requires federal сourts to deny relief
where reasonable jurists might disagree about police behavior
involving statements about close family members.”
Janusiak
,
III. Conclusion
Lentz confessed to shooting her father over the course of a five-and-a-half-hour interrogation. She maintains that any statements she made before she received her Miranda warn- ings should have been suppressed and that her confession was involuntary because the officers used her daughter’s well-being to coerce the confession. The Illinois Appellate Court considered all of the circumstances surrounding Lentz’s confession and reviewed the videotaped interroga- tion, and determined that Lentz was not in custody during the pre- portion of the interview and that her confession was voluntary despite any references that the police officers made about her daughter. Our habeas review is narrow and because the state court ’s decision did not involve an un rea- sonable application of clearly established federal law, the dis- trict court’s judgment denying Lentz’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
A FFIRMED .
Notes
[*] We granted the parties’ joint motion to waive oral argument, and the appeal is therefore submitted on the briefs and the record. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
[1]
Lentz I
is the appellate court’s decision on direct appeal, which ad-
dressed the suppression challenges that Lentz now raises in her federal
collateral proceedings. Lentz also filed a state postconviction petition rais-
ing ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, which resulted in a sec-
ond appellate court decision,
People v. Lentz
,
[2] Though Lentz also asserts the state court unreasonably determined facts in her statement of the issues and argument headings, she does not identify any specific factual determinations that were erroneous.