June 12, 2009 – Miranda warnings given before a noncustodial interrogation may be sufficient to advise a suspect of Fifth Amendment rights after an arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held on June 11 in State v. Grady, 2008 WI 47.

Validity of the warnings against self-incrimination is determined by the totality of circumstances surrounding an interrogation, the court held. The justices unanimously rejected a proposed rule to disqualify any warnings given prior to custodial interrogation.

Grady’s interrogation

Marchand Grady agreed to answer some questions at the police station in the course of a homicide investigation. Police considered Grady a witness, but a detective read the rights against self-incrimination to be “better safe than sorry.”

After two-and-a-half hours of a noncustodial interrogation, police arrested Grady on information that he was the killer. Police did not readminister the Miranda warnings, although a detective passed a card containing them to him. Police then questioned Grady for almost seven hours, and Grady made inculpatory statements.

The trial court denied Grady’s motion to suppress these statements. Grady was convicted of first-degree homicide while armed with a dangerous weapon as party to a crime, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to life in prison with the potential for release in 52 years.

Totality of the circumstances

“The United States Supreme Court has made clear its reluctance to adopt per se rules in the context of Miranda warnings,” the court noted. “Instead of delineating bright-line rules, the Supreme Court has embraced a more flexible approach whereby courts consider the totality of the circumstances.”

Although the justices refused to reduce the totality of the circumstances inquiry into “any formulaic test,” they listed a series of relevant factors:

• Whether the same officer or officers conducted the questioning
• Change of location during the interview
• Whether the subject matter of the questioning was consistent
• Mental or emotional impairment, if any, of a suspect
• Use of more coercive tactics when the suspect was placed in custody
• Suspect’s past experience with law enforcement
• Amount of time elapsed between the warnings and a custodial interrogation or confession

“The main thrust of the inquiry is whether the suspect being questioned was sufficiently aware of his or her rights during the custodial interrogation,” the court stated.

“Grady’s bright-line rule would focus the analysis on the custody status of a suspect, rather than on the individual’s comprehension and waiver of his rights,” the court said. “It is, in short, form over substance. A rule that says warnings given one minute before custody are ineffective per se because they were not given when the suspect was actually in custody is manifestly unreasonable.”

Further, the justices said, the exact point at which a suspect is officially under arrest is not always clear. For example, police officers may be in the midst of a good faith precustodial investigation at the station and cannot say exactly when the questioning turned into custodial interrogation where Miranda warnings are required, the court explained.

“Because of this indeterminancy, officers currently have an incentive to provide early warnings in order to ensure both maximum awareness of rights and the admissibility of subsequent statements,” the court reasoned. “Grady’s rule might have the perverse effect of eliminating the ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ approach, leading to suspects who less apprised of their rights than under the current system.”

Totality of circumstances in this case

Applying the totality of circumstances test to the facts of this case, the justices found the Miranda warnings effective.

The court noted that Grady was questioned by the same officers, in the same place, on the same subjects during his precustodial and postcustodial interrogations. “There is also no evidence in the record to suggest that the questioning became more coercive once Grady was arrested,” the court continued. “In fact, the record indicates Grady remained cooperative and voluntarily conversational. He was given frequent breaks and food both before and after he was arrested.

Two-and-a-half hours between the Miranda warnings and his arrest did not affect Grady’s awareness of his rights, the court added.