oral argument 2

Question 1

the first factor

Answer 1

favors that hardy was not in custody but as stated in Myers v state no factor is solely determinative of whether the suspect is in custody for miranda purposes

Question 2

the second factor

Answer 2

the person place and manner of the interrogation is in favor that hardy was in custody

Question 3

according to the record

Answer 3

• officer crane repeatedly asked whether hardy had any involvement in the criminal operation in which hardy denied
• officer crane showed hardy the fraudulent documents and told him he had been seen multiple times in the office
• hardy indicated officer crane did not believe him
• officer crane then let hardy cool down for a minute and then asked him again if he had been involved

Question 4

the record also states

Answer 4

that during the interrogation hardy had denied knowing any knowledge of what was going on in the office and officer crane responded “it sure seems like you and Marie spent a lot of time together.”

Question 5

therefore a reasonable person

Answer 5

in hardys position would believe that officer crane was implying that he or she was involved thus making he or she feel like a suspect

and after having been shown evidence against him and being repeatedly asked about his involvement even after denying such involvement

it is clear that the purpose of the interrogation was not just to gather information on the case but to try to pressure hardy to make a confession and that the manner was accusatorial

Question 6

the state may argue that

Answer 6

it was not custodial because it only lasted 30 minutes but that should not be determinative because although it was short a reasonable person would feel as if they were a suspect and compelled to answer

Question 7

as for place the record states

Answer 7

-the record states the interrogation was in a small room in the police station.
-In order to enter or leave the hallway where the room was, hardy needed to be buzzed in by an officer
-There were multiple officers visible in the hallway through a window in the room

Question 8

Being in a small room in the police station,

Answer 8

with no free exit without an officers consent

and with multiple law enforcement visible.

It is likely a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the fact that there is a restriction on his or her movement with the locked door and being held in an intimidating environment with visible law enforcement

Question 9

The state may argue that this factor favors he was not in custody because he was never restrained and because he was free to use the bathroom.

Answer 9

But even with that being true there was still a restriction on his movement with the locked doors

being allowed to use the bathroom is only temporary and does not imply there are free to terminate the interrogations