To safeguard this constitutional right, an uncounseled individual, subject to custodial interrogation, must be informed of his rights under Miranda. In re G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn.App. 2000). Interrogation is custodial if the person has been placed under arrest or had his freedom of movement restrained to a "degree associated with a formal arrest."
The cases that guide our analysis are In re Welfare of R.J.E., 630 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. App. 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 642 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 2002), and In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. App. 2000). In G.S.P., a 12-year-old boy was escorted from class to the principal's office by the principal and a uniformed police officer.
1998) (citation omitted); State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Minn. 1998) (citation omitted); see In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn.App. 2000) ("The test is not whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were not free to leave, but whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest."). In reaching this determination, we look to all of the surrounding circumstances, including the officer's and the suspect's behavior during the interrogation.
Although there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a defendant was "in custody," we consider the behaviors exhibited by both the defendant and the law enforcement officers involved in the encounter. See Wiernasz, 584 N.W.2d at 2-3; In re G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn.App. 2000). But when determining whether a juvenile was in custody, evaluation of the circumstances surrounding an interrogation should focus primarily on the perspective of the juvenile.
Juveniles as well as adults are entitled to be apprised of their constitutional rights according to the dictates of Miranda.In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn.App. 2000) (quotation and citation omitted). Determining whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact involving a two-part analysis:
To safeguard this constitutional right, an uncounseled individual, subject to custodial interrogation, must be informed of his rights under Miranda. In re G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn.App. 2000). Interrogation is custodial if the person has been placed under arrest or had his freedom of movement restrained to a "degree associated with a formal arrest."
When considering whether Miranda warnings are required prior to police questioning, we review the district court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and review de novo the district court's determination regarding whether the suspect was in police custody. In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn. App. 2000). A Miranda warning is required if an individual is interrogated by police while in custody.
Determining whether a defendant was subject to custodial interrogation requires consideration first of the circumstances surrounding custody, and then an examination of the interrogation itself. In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn. App. 2000). A.
The focus of this test is the perspective of the person who was questioned, not the subjective intent of the police officer. In re the Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn.App. 2000). Factors this court can consider when determining whether a juvenile was subject to custodial interrogation that would require a Miranda warning include the juvenile's age, intelligence, education, experience with the law, whether any warning was given, and the presence or absence of the juvenile's parents.
However, the determination of whether a juvenile would reasonably believe he or she was in custody must be made from the perspective of the juvenile. See In re Welfare of G.S.P., 610 N.W.2d 651, 657 (Minn.App. 2000). The circumstances surrounding appellant's interrogation support a conclusion that he reasonably would have believed that he was in custody at the time he made his admissions.