United States v. Catrett

STATES, Appellee, UNITED CATRETT, Jr.,

Michael W. Senior

Airman, Force, U.S. Air

Appellant.

No. 01-0042.

Crim.App. No. 33133.

U.S. Court of

the Armed Forces.

Argued April 2001. Sept.

Decided

Crawford, Judge, opinion Chief filed

concurring part and in the result.

Baker, J., opinion concurring filed

part in the result.

401 granted this Court February On following on the issues: review MILITARY THE I. WHETHER THE SUBSTAN- ERRED TO JUDGE IN TIAL OF APPELLANT PREJUDICE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S DENYING STATE- MOTION TO SUPPRESS BY APPELLANT AND MENTS MADE FROM THOSE EVIDENCE DERIVED STATEMENTS. THE MILITARY

II. WHETHER THE SUBSTAN- JUDGE ERRED TO TIAL APPELLANT IN PREJUDICE OF IN TESTIMONY ALLOWING OPINION MERITS RE- REBUTTAL THE ON J., MILITARY SULLIVAN, opinion APPELLANT’S delivered the of GARDING Court, EFFRON, CHARACTER PROPER and WITHOUT which GIERKE C.J., JJ., CRAWFORD, joined. filed an FOUNDATION. opinion part concurring and the result. WHETHER THE STAFF III. JUDGE BAKER, J., opinion concurring filed an IN TO ADVOCATE ERRED FAILING

part and in the result. ERRORS RESPOND TO LEGAL SUB- Wrobel, THE DEFENSE TO THE Appellant: Major

For Natasha V. MITTED BY Wise, ADVOCATE R. STAFF JUDGE RECOM- (argued); USAFR Colonel James Timothy MENDATION. Murphy, Lieutenant Colonel W. (on brief). Major

and A Fried Maria in the We resolve these issues Government’s Appellee: For Lieutenant Colonel Karen and of the Court of favor affirm the decision Manos, (argued); L. USAFR Colonel Antho- Appeals. Criminal Dattilo, ny Major P. B. Sigmon and Lance Appeals, The Court of Criminal WL (on brief); Fraser. Captain James C. following pertinent found the facts to the above issues: Judge opinion SULLIVAN delivered the Court. Background I. During late tried deployed general composed of The court-martial officer and Can- Base, (AFB), Mexico, Air Air New enlisted non Base members Cannon Force Force pleas, May Contrary New to his to Saudi from 6 1997 to Mexico. he was Arabia deployment, guilty aggravated July During assault and 1997. automobile, friend, wrongfully damaging an in viola- asked his best Airman 128(b)(2) (A1C) Walker, to look after his tion of Articles and First Class Uniform Justice, weeks, Military and Code USC wife. Within A1C Walker Mrs. 928(b)(2) began §§ The respectively. De- a sexual affair. rela- and On Catrett 18, 1997, tionship shortly until before the cember he was sentenced to a bad- continued July discharge, confinement returned home. On conduct wife, months, pay per his appellant, month A1C forfeiture of $300.00 months, for 11 and reduction to airman basic. Walker were at the house Clovis, proceeded authority approved NM. Mrs. Catrett convening this sen- tence, unhappy exceeding tell the that she except for confinement months, him. The leaving on and was be- March 1998. Court upset if she findings affirmed the came and asked wanted Criminal him Walker. An guilty approved August on leave because of A1C sentence argument then ensued between thereafter, husband, lant Shortly and AlC Walker. with him had been since she car, years struck AlC Walker old. While Mrs. object, knocking back of the head with an Catrett was still afraid and continued to be couch, him began striking onto a him consequences concerned with the of what body happened. his head and with a rawhide had After this brief conversa- bone, statue, tion, a brass sailfish and his fists. Officer S took Mrs. Catrett to the police also bit AlC Walker on his to station obtain written statement body gouged statement, head and and AlC Walker’s taking from her. Prior to her eyes fingers. point, with his At this the Officer S informed her that she would have mother, appellant’s ap- who lived with the oath, sign to the statement under and that however, pellant, stopped fight; the the hap- it would be used as evidence of what appellant indicated he intended to “finish pened night. point, that At this Mrs. Ca- Walker, tonight.” fearing AlC that write, scared, trett said she could not appellant might again, the attack him fled shaking pen. and hold a could not Officer the house. Within seconds of AlC Walk- S told her he would write the statement departure, er’s Mrs. Catrett fled the house if him for her she would relate to what accompanied and to the near- AlC Walker happened. getting stated She that after SSgt Sergeant] residence of R. [Staff party, back the her she told husband from going she was to leave him. The bedroom, furious,

became ran to their and gun. returned with a After the A. Statements the Wife pushed way, her out of the the began fight. and AlC Walker to She ran house, leaving appellant’s After AlC and out of the room number of times. SSgt Walker Mrs. and Catrett ran to R’s point, At one she saw the hit apaiftment. inside, Once AlC Walker with a AlC Walker rawhide bone. phoned Department the Clovis Police stopped, fight After a few minutes the reported that he had been assaulted. saw bleeding. she that AlC Walker was Upon police, the arrival of the AlC Walker going then stated he was to explained police happened. to what had get gun another and this is when she and discussion, During this Mrs. Catrett was ran AlC Walker the house. After away about 5 to 7 feet from AlC Walker S, giving this statement Officer Mrs. police. Shortly police and the after the crying and Catrett was was concerned arrived, paramedics apart- came to the go. writing about would After where she ment, Walker, examined AlC and took him statement, Officer S took Mrs. Catrett hospital. to the local Just before AlC to Detective in order to have him nota- S hospital, Walker left for the Mrs. Catrett rize the statement. Detective met When S responding police officers, told one Catrett, emotionally with Mrs. she was still S, told the she Officer after upset. crying At She was and nervous. anymore, she did not want to be with him time, Detective felt that Mrs. S Ca- appellant got gun and hit AlC Walk- upset sign trett was too her statement SSgt er it. with Both R and Officer S notary in front of a and decided to let her apartment, testified while at the Mrs. leave the station. returned la- She frantic, excited, appeared Catrett morning ter that and stated that she did repeatedly afraid. what She asked sign not want to told statement. She Thereafter, going she to do. Mrs. Catrett go, Detective that she had nowhere to no S SSgt apartment left with R’s Officer S with, get her one to be and did not want vehicle and went to the husband into other trouble because residence. only she could live in Clovis with him. residence, Upon arrival at the while still vehicle, During period September Mrs. told 1997 to Catrett provided having that she an affair 3 December Mrs. Officer S Catrett written, Walker, that she still loved her one oral statement and one sworn AlC him, his father and talked with sided with team defense statement At no time did telephone. that her statements in which she stated with these con- attempt to interfere police authorities were false the local versations. against her husband. allegations denied her statements to

Additionally, in between search, M During the Officer written, defense, provided a sworn she handgun. but no gun holster After find- Base Air Force statement Cannon holster, M went back to ing the Officer (AFOSI) in Special Investigations Office of ap- again asked the living room and she she reaffirmed the statements which point, At this Of- happened. pellant what local authorities on made to the rawhide bone on ficer M noticed a trial, July Finally, at Mrs. Catrett He asked the blood on it. floor with testify against privilege her not to asserted had hit AlC Walker lant her husband. responded that he appellant The bone. ap- had. M then reiterated Officer gun was “apparently that a in-

pellant responded that appellant The volved.” Appellant’s Admissions B. The gun, that he hit AlC Walker there was no to Civilian Police bone, he had also hit and that statue, with a brass AlC Walker SSgt sailfish talking After with AlC Walker on a The which was located stereo. apartment, police officers went to R’s three later seized De- bone and sailfish were At time the the residence. the appellant the tective S who arrested residence, police entered the where, took him to the station they allegation the that the were aware of time, he was read his Miranda the first appellant had assaulted AlC Walker with appellant to make warnings. The declined handgun suspect. a a and considered him lawyer. a requested statement residence, Upon entering the Officer M patted appellant the down and found residence, appellant was at his the While Further, M saw blood on knife. Officer under nor was he never told he was arrest walls, floor, and couch and noticed that Although appellant was handcuffed. injuries. appellant no Offi- exhibited premises, leave the never told he could not appellant cer M informed the appellant M that the was Officer testified complaint responding to an assault premises and would not free to leave appellant happened. The asked the what stopped if he tried. Officer M have been appellant informed the that his wife while the was de- stated that had an affair with Walker. At had AlC tained, in Officer M he was not began get agi- point was de- explained that an individual who to remain calm. tated and was advised leave, tained, was not although not free was then that However, person in custo- informed handcuffed. handgun allegedly the as- was used in leave, was hand- dy, although not free to used, denying that a sault. detaining M’s intent cuffed. Officer After appellant consented to a search his scene, the crime was to secure residence. weapons safety, any for the officers’ secure get an preliminary questions ask and to search, ap- point during the At one happened. stated idea of what Officer M L, accompanied pellant, by Officer went to place that the decision to get Popsicle. kitchen to by Detective S. custody was to be made to either lant was then told that he needed living an offi- remain in the room or have added). Unpub. op. (emphasis at 2-6 accompany him the room. cer if he left Thereafter, A Officer remained with Additionally, living room. us is whether the on-going, The first

while the search was still mother, mo- judge denying the defense who re- trial erred appellant talked with his (the CCA) (see suppress appellant’s tion to statements to the factfinder Keohane, 99, 112-13, Thompson cMlian evidence derived v. 516 U.S. Arizona, (1995)). therefrom. See Miranda v. 384 116 S.Ct. 133 L.Ed.2d 383 We Texas, U.S. 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 that v. likewise conclude Orozco su- (1966). Appellant contends that persuasive authority. pra, is See New York concluding erred in that he was not custo- Quarles, n. S.Ct. dy questioned by police in when civilian his apartment. argues He further appel Our next concern whether Appeals Court of Criminal erred when it questioning re lant’s without the in-custody questioning found that his quired warning Miranda was nonetheless justified “public exception safety” under the justified by public safety exception” “the recognized to Miranda New York v. Quarles, recognized Miranda in New York v. Quarles, 649, 655, 467 U.S. 104 S.Ct. supra at 2626. See also Unit (1984). Finally, broadly L.Ed.2d 550 as- (CMA Loukas, ed States v. Supreme serts that the recent decision of the 1990). The Court of Criminal held Court Dickerson v. United Quarles applicable in this case: (2000), 147 L.Ed.2d 405 “public safety” exception invalidated the Although we find the Miranda. custody, rights his Miranda were not vio- arriving appellant’s lated. to at the Prior Initially, agreement we our with note residence, M that a Officer was informed (CCA) the Court of Criminal gun Upon in was used the assault. enter- appellant custody by in questioned was when residence, ing the he was concerned with police apartment July in civilian his safety locating gun the because of officer 1997. It said: by telling concerns. This was evident his evidence, reviewing After the we dis- appellant keep the hands his where military agree with the and conclude could see them and his search of the appellant po- in the was once the person appellant’s and seizure of the knife. him lice told he was not free to leave the discovery empty gun His latter [sic] accompa- living room unless a officer only a holster added to his concerns about receiving him. After nied instruction gun. questioning His the was living the never left the room directly attributable to his desire to locate until he was taken to the station. gun asking secure it. It while the room, living the in the While questions the further about the always police present there was officer gun that M noticed the rawhide Officer Therefore, control movements. his plain in dog bone with blood on it view. on, that time the was under con- appellant if M asked the he hit A1C Officer police supervision. According stant to Of- Walker with the bone. When the testimony, the was un- ficer M’s had, M, replied lant that he still Officer detention, leave, der was not free to specifically gun, worried the said to about stopped attempted would have been if he appellant, “Apparently gun in- to do so. volved.” The then reiterated factors, upon Based these we find that hit gun that no was involved because he person, in finding reasonable themselves and the A1C Walker with the bone circumstances, they like would conclude sailfish. These admissions were di- brass to leave the control of the were free attempts to rectly related to M’s Officer police. regard, In this we find the facts gun because his concern locate for present in this case are not unlike those ap- safety at the officers Texas, found Orozco Accordingly, pub- pellant’s residence. (1969). 1095,22 L.Ed.2d 311 S.Ct. safety exemption the Miranda [sic] lic Supreme warnings announced Unpub. op. a de novo as at 7. This is Quarles applicable to this case on the basis of facts Court of law to be decided admissions; conclude that the need answers the ra- We for posing questions in a situation a threat whide bone and the brass sailfish were safety outweighs the need properly public admitted into evidence. to the prophylactic protecting rule Fifth added). (emphasis Unpub. op. at 8-9 privilege against Amendment’s self-in- Appellant disagrees and asserts: “Officer place crimination. We decline to officers Appellant interrogated the not to secure [M] po- such as Officer Kraft the untenable any police safety public officer or the consider, having to often in a sition of simply but to obtain a confession.” Final seconds, it serves matter of whether best Brief at 14. necessary society for them to ask the questions warnings without the Miranda Supreme Court in New York v. probative and render whatever evidence Quarles, 657-58, U.S. S.Ct. inadmissible, they uncover or for them to recognized exception a narrow to the Mi- give warnings preserve order to rawda-warnings’ requirement respect with admissibility they might un- of evidence questioning suspect It said: possibly damage destroy cover but or their case, very act of ability to obtain that evidence and neutral- apprehending suspect, were confronted confronting ize the volatile situation them. necessity immediate ascertain- ing gun the whereabouts of a which added.) (Emphasis every suspect had reason to believe the case the civilian just empty had removed from his holster complaint in responding to a domestic-assault supermarket. and discarded So gun reportedly which a involved. See long as the was concealed somewhere Simpson, United States v. supermarket, actual its where- (7th Cir.1992), denied, cert. unknown, obviously posed abouts it more 1326, 122 Al L.Ed.2d public than danger safety: one an though appellant emp using gun, denied an it, accomplice might make use of a custom- ty during holster found was also search employee might upon er or later come it. appellant’s apartment challenged before the situation, In such a if the are Quarles, questioning. See New York v. su required to recite the familiar Miranda pra Finally, at 104 S.Ct. 2626. the warnings asking before the whereabouts of by police, questions although asked gun, suspects Quarles’ position phrased reported in terms of the cause of the might responding. well be deterred from assault, by legiti be to safeguards Procedural which deter a sus- attempts by police mate to locate the still- pect responding accept- from were deemed (R. 138) missing gun. Compare United protect able in Miranda in order to (8th Williams, v. States 953 pri- Fifth privilege; Amendment when the Cir.1999), Quarles, supra n. at 659 mary protections social cost those added agree appellate 104 S.Ct. 2626. We convictions, possibility is the of fewer public-safety exception court below that the majority willing Miranda to bear-that applied in to Miranda these circumstances. Here, warnings cost. had Miranda de- Loukas, generally v. See United States Quarles responding terred to Officer MJ at 389. question Kraft’s about the whereabouts of inquiry granted Our final on this issue is gun, the cost would have been some- Supreme whether the recent decision thing merely more than the failure to ob- States, Court Dickerson v. United 530 U.S. convicting Quarles. tain evidence useful (2000), 147 L.Ed.2d 405 Officer Kraft needed an answer to his public-safety exception simply undermined the to question not to make his ease by against Quarles Judge Young Miranda as contended but to insure that further danger public Unpub. op. court below. at 11. did not result from service that, excep- public argument although the concealment of the in a is basic exclusionary area. tions to the court-made rule (a) Court, opinion. In all cases Reputation or by Supreme may be carved out a trait of in which evidence of character or constitutionally based rule exceptions to admissible, person proof may character of a is not. See against coerced confessions (Scalia, J., reputa- 452-53, by testimony as to may be made 530 U.S. at 120 S.Ct. 2326 writing by testimony in the an Rehnquist, tion or dissenting). Chief Justice form cross-examination, majority inquiry is opinion. Dickerson United On rejected supra specific instances of S.Ct. allowable into relevant (“no im- rule is argument this constitutional conduct.

mutable”) so do we. added.) (Emphasis impact, any, Regardless of the Toro, 313, 317 In United States v. Quarles, find upon we still would Dickerson denied, (1993), cert. S.Ct. harmless violation this case Miranda (1994), 919, 127 L.Ed.2d this Court com Arizona v. beyond a reasonable doubt. See required foundation mented on the Fulminante, 279, 295, 111 a court- opinion is admitted at such evidence 1246, 113 response In L.Ed.2d martial: police, civilian challenged questioning opinion lay proper foundation for To police that he appellant admitted to civilian evidence, proponent must show with a bone and a hit A1C Walker personally knows the the character witness However, alleged victim sailfish statue. acquainted is with the witness witness and case that so assault testified enough opportunity have had an well Moreover, him. evidence of statements ed character opinion of the witness’ form an wife, eyewitness, an made v. Per- for truthfulness. United States admitted in this case. the same effect were (CMA 1982), ner, MJ 184-85 bone, Finally, which bloodied psychiatric an enlisted Court held that case, in this was discov admitted as evidence “had seen” the accused’s technician who apartment plain ered view professionally” on three occasions did “wife challenged incriminating before he made the relationship enjoy sufficiently close admissions. express opinion as to untruthfulness. an Graham, appel argues that Appellant Mr. II landlord, qualified to was not lant’s civilian presented ap- in this The second military character. opinion on his offer an military judge erred in peal whether the (R. 385-87) v. Jen also United States See testify allowing appel- a civilian landlord to to (CMA 1988). kins, 209MJ poor military generally lant’s character. See 404(a)(1), Manual for Courts- Mil.R.Evid. charged military judge with Martial, Previously, the United party has established deciding whether a enlisted mili- defense had called two senior opinion admission of sufficient foundation for tes- tary during its case-in-chief to members person’s character. concerning a evidence good military character. tify to 104(a). She has generally Mil.R.Evid. See 377-80) (R. 367-72; The defense offered this regard. in See discretion this considerable support to its contention evidence Breeding, 44 MJ States v. United charged offenses. lant did not commit the (and therein). (1996) several cited For cases Piatt, 445-46 United States v. MJ See reasons, military judge conclude that the we (CMA 1984). offered the The Government permitting in this discretion did not abuse landlord to rebut challenged testimony civilian, appel Graham, testify to about Mr. good military charac- evidence of the defense at 348-51. military character. id. lant’s Cf. ter, objected based on this and the defense that Mr. in case shows The record provide such testi- qualifications to witness’ previous- had not a civilian who Graham was (R. 385) mony. (R. 403) However, military. ly served 405(a) provides: Mil.R.Evid. had been that his father it also shows up the “civil service military, grew proving of character Rule 405. Methods (R. 405) (R. 401-02) view, military judge military community. In our side” of Moreover, ruling and she did not regular con- had some basis for her Mr. Graham did have admitting military- military personnel abuse her discretion tact with the and its testimony from this witness. capacities. He testified: character various Cf. Armon, 83, 87 States v. United Q: you belong any organiza- And do to (1999)(military-character testimony of officer tions Clovis? not know accused or his service who did belong I to the of A: Several. Chamber inadmissible). record I Air belong Commerce. Force belong I to a Armed Services Committee. Ill organization, Rotary, church and Lions question in case is The third Club. judge prejudicial whether the staff advocate Q: Professionally, kind of what interac- ly by failing respond erred you tion do have with Cannon Air Force post-trial legal claims of error at his court- Base? nine-page Appellant martial. submitted a course, Professionally, A: involved response judge to the staff advocate’s recom the chamber. We do a lot of events that delineating great mendation detail four community type events service involve— legal alleged errors. These errors are sum community. participate that involve the I by him marized as follows: change a lot of the events that involve First, presented the evidence whether course, command. Of attend those. we support trial sufficient to convic- Some of the social functions out here. assault; second, aggravated tion of wheth- very strong have a involvement with the improperly judge er the tidal admitted the office, Air housing Cannon Force Base wife; hearsay Appellant’s statements of the leasing virtually with us hundreds third, failure of the local to advise every year. tenants We deal with them on Appellant rights prior of his Miranda daily basis. We have dealt with —I have him; fourth, questioning whether strategic been on some planning commit- military judge improperly allowed the tees that involve the base commander and opinion court members to hear evidence. wing commander in housing reference to during needs market Clovis the Final Brief at 23.

years expansion reorgani- Cannon’s Appellant judge contends that the staff zation. I’ve So served on a lot of those respond advocate his addendum failed to Basically committees. lot of involve- —a or even mention of these errors. ment, course, office, legal help- 1106(d)(4), Manual, supra, ROM states in ing people go review their leases and over pertinent part: information, things like that over the (4) Legal errors. The staff advo- years. legal required cate or officer is not Q: Okay, many sir. And about how rent- legal the record for examine errors. How- you al think you units do have? ever, pre- when recommendation is A: currently. We have 583 units advocate, pared by judge a staff the staff Q: your guess, And best about how whether, judge advocate shall state in the percentage much —what mili- are rented to judge opinion, advocate’s corrective staff tary personnel? findings action on the or sentence should Typically, makeup A: allegation legal our is somewhere be taken when an error of nonmilitary. usually around 300 to 200 So is raised in matters submitted under ROM military around 300 active are in appropri- our units 1105 or when otherwise deemed years, at all judge times. Over last 10 we’ve ate the staff advocate. The re- 10,000 and, people rented sponse may to over that consist a statement 8,000 group, probably agreement disagreement about have been or with the mat- military. analysis I’ve a So had lot contact over ter raised the accused. An or years military. with the rationale advocate’s for staff house, phoned

statement, leaving the Walker any, concerning legal errors After Clovis, Mexico, Department Police New required. is not reported the assault. A bit after and added.) Here, (Emphasis paragraph of the residence, appel- police SSgt R’s arrived at Judge Advocate Rec- Addendum to the Staff wife told the that her husband lant’s stated: ommendation gun SSgt hit Both R had used a to Walker. by the defense 2. The matters submitted “testified that while and the officer to this Addendum and are are attached apartment,” appellant’s wife “was excit- hereby incorporated by reference. Noth- ed, frantic, appeared afraid.” She was ing contained in the submissions defense Arriving at her taken back to her home. opin- warrants farther modification of home, appellant’s told the officer wife expressed in ions and recommendations affair”; having an “still “that she was not Judge Advocate’s Recommenda- Staff husband, had been with him” loved her course, all you Of must consider tions. Unpub. op. many years. for at 3. you de- written matters submitted Later, informed the officers appropriate taken termine the action to be alleged investigating the assault. in this case. walls, they noticed “blood on the At the time added.) view, (Emphasis this state- our floor, couch,” “appel- but observed minimal-response require- ment satisfied the injuries.” Appellant be- lant exhibited no 1106(d)(4). ment of ROM telling agitated he came when was Air of the States about his wife’s affair with Walker. When The decision United weapon is affirmed. that a had Force of Criminal was informed Court assault, using he denied a been used denial, gun. After he “consented to a CRAWFORD, (concurring in Judge Chief the search search of his residence.” While result): part and in the kitchen to ongoing, appellant went to the majority’s agree with the discussion living get popsicle; he then returned However, I, I Issues II and III. as to Issue lived with room and talked to his mother who “[pjolice- agree military judge that a father on the him. He also talked to his decision to arrest Later, man’s ... uncommunicated telephone. officer found a suspect ... does not bear on whether gun, holster no and asked what but custody.” on the facts and this Based happened. had At the same time officer law, correctly she held that conclusion dog rawhide bone noticed a bloodstained not in dog if the the floor. He asked Appellant to hit

bone was used Walker. responded that he had used it. The officer FACTS but again questioned about returning home from a months’ After using gun, appellant repeated his denial of deployment, appellant convinced that became and a saying only he used the bone friend, Walker, began a A1C had his best After bone sailfish statue. seizure relationship appellant’s wife. In sexual statue, appellant was arrest- and the sailfish presence, appellant’s wife said she Walker’s rights. of his He asked ed and warned Appellant him. than “struck wanted to leave op. Unpub. at 5-6. counsel. the head with an on the back of A1C Walker According to the court below: couch,” him object, knocking onto residence, at his While fingers.” eyes with his “gouged A1C Walker’s under arrest nor was never told he was mother, “appellant’s Then who lived with Although handcuffed. fight;” “appellant appellant,- stopped the but ” premises, told he could not leave never tonight.’ he intended to ‘finish indicated appellant was life, testified that the Walker, Officer M fearing for his premises and would wife, not free to leave “to the near- “fled the house” and went M stopped if he tried. Officer op. have been SSgt Unpub. R.” residence

409 evidence.” Because was de- could be admitted stated that while the tained, dimen- Miranda is a rule of “constitutional” custody. he was not sion, Congress does not the Court held op. Unpub. at 6. right to overrule it. The Court have the reason for Miranda was reiterated that the DISCUSSION difficulty sorting out what constitutes judge’s suppression on the decision 435, voluntary U.S. at 120 confession. 530 reviewed for an of discretion. motion is abuse particularly difficult to de- S.Ct. 2326. It is 265, Young, 49 266-67 States v. MJ United interrogation when an termine voluntariness (1998); Schelkle, 110, v. United States place in the isolation of the takes denied, 1078, (1997), 112 522 118 cert. U.S. where there are no witnesses other station (1998). 857, judge’s A S.Ct. 139 L.Ed.2d 756 suspect Id. at than the officers. findings accepted clearly of fact are unless 435, emphasized 120 S.Ct. 2326. The Court See, Bins, e.g., v. erroneous. United States interrogation, in a Miranda that custodial (1995); 79, 43 v. Wal MJ 83 United States suspect “was cut off from the outside (CMA 1994). lace, 284, However, 39 286 MJ world,” placed “police-dominated custody question is “a ‘mixed Miranda, 445, atmosphere.” 384 U.S. 86 qualifying independent of law and fact’ Generally, interrogations involv- S.Ct. 1602. Keohane, 99, Thompson review.” v. 516 U.S. ing trickery deceit and can occur the se- (1995). 113, 457, 116 S.Ct. 133 L.Ed.2d 383 crecy of the station. As has been said: Miller, In United States v. 45 MJ 149 convey Custodial arrest is said to (1996), Court, relying Stansbury v. suspect message has no choice 318, 1526, California, 511 114 128 U.S. S.Ct. but to to the officers’ will and to submit (1994), adopted objective L.Ed.2d 293 an test [Cjustodial confess.... arrest thrusts an subjective rather than a test to determine interrogation individual into ... “an envi- person whether a inis See also purpose ronment ... created for no other Meeks, 150, v. 41 161 n. United States MJ 3 subjugate than to the individual to the will (CMA 1994). Thus, subjective intent of Many psychologi- of the examiner.” might happen appel the officer as to what ploys capitalize cal discussed Miranda lant tried to leave not taken into consider suspect’s unfamiliarity on the with the offi- determining ation in whether exist Finally, cers and the environment.... ed, unless this intent is communicated to inherent in interro- coercion custodial appellant. McCarty, Berkemer v. 468 U.S. gation large derives in measure from an 420, 3138, 442, 104 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed.2d 317 interrogator’s that the interro- insinuations (1984). 319, Stansbury, also See 511 U.S. at gation will continue until a confession is 114 S.Ct. 1526. Where the intent to make a obtained. seizure has not been communicated to the 420, 433, Murphy, Minnesota v. 465 U.S. 104 suspect, a number of federal have held courts (1984) (citation 1136, S.Ct. 79 L.Ed.2d 409 interrogation suspect’s that an in a home is omitted). See, e.g., non-custodial. United States v. (10th Supreme addressed Rith, 1323, Court has custodi Cir.), 164 F.3d cert. interrogations denied, al outside the stationhouse 78, 528 U.S. 120 S.Ct. States, v. two cases. Beckwith United (1999); Mitchell, L.Ed.2d 66 United States v. (1976), (2d U.S. 96 S.Ct. 48 L.Ed.2d Cir.1992); 966 F.2d United States Texas, (1st Cir.1991). and Orozco v. 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. Lanni, v. 442-43 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 Minnesota Cf. In Dickerson v. United Murphy, supra. v. 428, 431-32, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000), Beckwith, special agents stated that two from the Court Miranda Arizona, private IRS went the defendant’s resi- (1966), Upon L.Ed.2d 694 “held that certain warn- dence at 8:00 a.m. arrival identi- ings given suspect’s agents be state- fied as and asked to must themselves IRS during interrogation speak They ment made custodial to Beckwith. were invited into handcuffed, get popsicle, was not kitchen to to wait while Beckwith house and asked specific to remain out and was not ordered dressing. Then Beckwith came finished point” appellant “at some with location. While dining at the room table and sat down to interfere with the Beckwith that was asked effect not agents. They informed possible investigation, this is investigating a criminal or reasonable they were search complete Mi- than a giving constituting no more tax fraud. Without conduct they him that in a warning, temporary did advise and did not result randa detention Fifth Amendment to the Constitu- that time. custody under the arrest or at formal Cf. States, you McArthur, 326, cannot be tion of the United 121 S.Ct. Illinois v. (2001). any questions. fact, Beck- compelled to answer when 148 L.Ed.2d 838 acknowledged house, he understood his with that did not arrived at agents for rights interviewed and was lights or and did not use use their sirens nearly The conversation was de- 3 hours. mentioned in Mi of the subtle coercions and Beckwith friendly and relaxed scribed as an instance like Helmel randa. Nor is this pressed. At the conclusion was incoming all tele where the “answered permis- agent received interview the senior phone Even so the court Helmel calls.” inspect certain rec- from Beckwith to sion interroga there no custodial held that interrogation held that this ords. The Court See, e.g., 769 F.2d at 1320. tion. interrogation. constitute a custodial did not criminal threaten Catrett with did not Likewise, that an Murphy, the Court held subject imprisonment, him to a charges or or the defendant’s office was interrogation at See, Lanni, e.g., prolonged interrogation. interrogation. at not a custodial U.S. (interview in defendant’s 951 F.2d at 441-43 429-30,104 S.Ct. 1136. just after she had awak home around 8 a.m. ened, dressed, opened the door gotten place that takes at the This is not a case Thus, interrogation). Catrett not custodial per- are or four officers station where warnings custody rights’ not in and no boarding- mitted to enter the defendant’s required. “by at 4:00 a.m. an unidentified house room Orozco, supra at 89 S.Ct. woman.” only agree I these reasons For “petitioner that 1095. The Court noted while disposition I. majority’s of Issue bed, in familiar interrogated on his own S.Ct; surroundings,” at Or- id. BAKER, part Judge (concurring in and not free to ozco was “under arrest result): 1095. The dis- leave.” Id. at 89 S.Ct. accepting “Even in Orozco stated: senters majority II and agree I on Issues with Miranda, the rule here the Court extends I, concludes that majority III. On Issue straitjacket tighter.” Id. even and draws custody. agree. appellant was (White Stewart, JJ., at 89 S.Ct. 1095 during the point “At one court below found: dissenting). search, ... was then told “ living in the room case, he needed to either remain no ‘formal arrest In this there was accompany him if he left officer as- or have an freedom of movement’... or restraint on Thereafter, A remained Officer v. the room. arrest.” with a formal sociated California living room.” Un- Beheler, 1121, 1125, added). (1983). At this op. (emphasis interrogation pub. at 5 This 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 longer free to leave point, appellant was no place appellant’s “own turf.” United took Texas, (8th Helmel, custody. Orozco v. and was States 324, 327, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 Cir.1985). was aimed U.S. The Miranda decision appellant oc- questioning of Police and not so subtle alleviating the subtle taken curred before and after place a stationhouse pressures that take taken into It was after he was placed into individual is interrogation or where an police that he told surroundings removed in unfamiliar bone and victim with had hit the Appellant was family members and friends. sailfish statue. telephone, go talk on the free to

411 ease, objec determining In this there is a tension between the whether there is an tively excep invoke the custody reasonable basis to conclusion that and tion, totality courts have looked to the of the application public-safety exception, of the presented, including: the im circumstances exception premised where that is alone danger weapons1; pos minence of from police safety exercising of the officers presence bystanders sible of who could be result, appellant. over As a for the by weapons2; possible presence harmed below, reasons to affirm stated vote weap of additional individuals who could use case on the basis that if there were error 3; suspect’s of ons and freedom movement below, beyond it was harmless a reasonable potential weapons.4 access to doubt. In this case there came a time when public-safety exception Under the to Mi- police custody lant was under and his mobili- randa, a custodial statement obtained ty controlled. The home had been searched warnings absence of Miranda need be and no additional individuals were located or suppressed police if obtain the statement present might identified who a threat to the light objectively of an reasonable need to public large. public officers or protect public either the or the did empty not have access to the home. The danger. Quarles, immediate New York v. concern, holster was cause for absent but 649, 8, 2626, 467 U.S. 659 n. 104 S.Ct. 81 appellant, the record does not indicate the (1984); Jones, L.Ed.2d 550 United States v. presence might of other individuals who 353, (CMA 1988). 26 MJ 356 This narrow threaten the If officers. the officers felt that exception questions

Miranda is limited to presence of mother created necessary safety to secure the of offi- risk, they way. did not act that Nor is this a safety public. cers and the Once such case offending where asked the obtained, information suspect has been question searching before the home. Based given must warnings, be the Miranda circumstances, totality on the of these it is inteiTogation Signifi- custodial continues. reasonably objective not clear that a need cantly, recognizing public-safe- while that the protect public existed to the officers or the ty exception against ran the Court’s interest once was in in preserving “clarity,” Miranda the Court exception intended that be Nonetheless, “workable” if there were error in admit- require and not officers faced with the imme- ting appellant’s statements about the diacy engage precise statue, events on-scene bone and the sailfish after he was in balancing permitted prohibited between custody, beyond such error was harmless Quarles, 658, questions. supra at 104 Appellant’s reasonable doubt. statements 2626. substantially could not have influenced the Finch, People 1. Simpson, Cal.App.4th State v. 137 Wash.2d 975 P.2d 65 66 Cal. (1999)(exception applicable during 990-91 231G, tele App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d phone negotiations by SWAT team with defen (1998)(objectively question reasonable ... dant barricaded in home where Miranda warn suspect presence weapons about the and other ings upset could further defendant and erode potential dangers in execution of search warrant resolution), denied, potential peaceful cert. trafficker, "upon premises” drug of “known ... L.Ed.2d probable quantities cause to believe substantial (1999). Moses, See United States v. found,” illegal drugs knowing will be and "not 134 and n. 3 might present property”). who else be on the 2. Trice v. United 662 A.2d (D.C.1995)(exception applies light "strong DeSantis, 4. United States v. circumstantial evidence” of at defendant's (9th Cir.1989)(even right to counsel was in presence residence of small children in house, excep voked when came into the arrest, notwithstanding home at time of ar- questioning tion allowed about whether there questioning days rest and occurred after shoot- weapons adjoining bedroom when defen ing and detective waited 1 after hour arrest station). clothes). go change ask dant asked to in there to (3) bone, bloody dog which was against light the other evidence

findings (1) and, least, very would at the plain view included: appellant. This evidence (2) statement; inevitably have been discovered. testimony; the wife’s victim’s

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Catrett

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Date Published: Sep 19, 2001

Citation: 2001 WL 1097774

Docket Number: 01-0042/AF

Court Abbreviation: C.A.A.F.