Jones v. United States

779 A.2d 277, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 175, 2001 WL 930885

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 16, 2001
• Docket: 96-CM-1220
• Status: Published

Opinions

ON REHEARING EN BANC

SCHWELB, Associate Judge:

Following a bench trial, Elton R. Jones was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of cocaine, in violation of D.C.Code § 33-641(d) (1998). Jones filed a timely notice of appeal, contending that the trial judge had committed reversible error by denying Jones’ motion to suppress, on Miranda grounds,¹ an incriminating statement that Jones had made to the police at the scene of the offense.

On March 4, 1999, a division of this court reversed Jones’ conviction. Jones v. United States, 726 A.2d 186 (D.C.1999) (Jones I). The court held that Jones was in police custody at the relevant time, that the words and actions of the police which led to Jones’ incriminating statement were the “functional equivalent of questioning,” and that Jones’ statement was therefore the product of “custodial interrogation” as that term was used in Miranda and in Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300-01, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). Jones I, supra, 726 A.2d at 188-90. Because Jones had not been advised of his rights in conformity with Miranda, the division held that his statement should have been suppressed; accordingly, the division reversed Jones’ conviction. Id. at 190.

The United States filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, contending that Jones was not in custody at the time that he made the incriminating statement and that, even if he was, the statement sought to be suppressed was not made in response to police interrogation. On March 2, 2000, the division issued a revised opinion on rehearing in which it elaborated on its prior analysis but adhered to its disposition in Jones I. Jones v. United States, 747 A.2d 558 (D.C.2000) (Jones II). One judge dissented. Id. at 568-64.

On February 13, 2001, we granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc addressed to the decision in Jones II. Jones v. United States, 770 A.2d 66 (D.C.2001) (en banc) (per curiam) (Jones III). We now conclude that there was no Miranda violation. Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conviction.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Testimony at the hearing on Jones’ suppression motion revealed that the events which led to Jones’ prosecution occurred in the 600 block of Newton Place, N.W. in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 1995. Officer Diane Groomes of the Metropolitan Police Department testified that on the evening in question, she drove into the area in a scout car. Upon arrival, she observed three men standing on the sidewalk. Officer Groomes testified that she saw one of the men, later identified as appellant Elton R. Jones, drop two ziplock bags to the ground. Two other officers who were in the scout car apparently also observed the drop. Officer Groomes stopped the car, and she and the other officers approached Mr. Jones and directed the other two men to go across the street.

The officers then focused their attention on Mr. Jones. One of the officers picked up the two ziplock bags that were lying at Jones’ feet. The bags contained a white rock substance that later proved to be crack cocaine. The officers asked Jones “for his ID, if he had ID at that time, or if he didn’t have his ID what is his name, address, where he lives, things like that.” After these questions were posed to him, Jones stated that “all he does is drink” and that “he was holding for those two guys.” At the time that he made these comments, Jones had not been advised of his rights under Miranda.2,

After a field test of the suspected drugs indicated the presence of cocaine, Jones was placed in the police cruiser and transported to a police station; he was then released on citation. A week later, the United States Attorney filed an information charging Jones with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.

Through counsel, Jones filed a pretrial motion to suppress the incriminating statement that he had made at the scene, namely, that he was holding the drugs for someone else. On July 10, 1996, an evidentiary hearing was held on Jones’ motion. During the presentation of the evidence,³ the trial judge declared that, in her view, Jones was “in custody” for Miranda purposes at the time that he made the incriminating statement. After the parties had completed the presentation of their evidence, the judge found, in conformity with the testimony, that the police had not advised Jones of his rights pursuant to Miranda. Nevertheless, the judge denied Jones’ motion to suppress:

I credit the testimony of the police officer to the effect that prior to Mr. Jones making the statements that he made, that he had not been interrogated, and that the statements were spontaneous. That he volunteered this information about the fact that he was just drinking and that he was holding for someone else, and that it was not in response to police interrogation that those statements were made.

I credit the officer’s testimony that once the drugs had been seized by one of her colleagues, that the only questions that were asked of Mr. Jones related to his identification[,] to his name. And that no questions — although at some point questions were asked about the drugs, according to [the officer’s] testimony those questions were asked after the defendant had made the statements that are at issue here.

After the judge denied Jones’ motion, the case proceeded to a non-jury trial on the merits. The trial judge found Mr. Jones guilty as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for sixty days. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

The only issue before the en banc court is whether Jones’ admission that he was holding the drugs was the product of custodial interrogation, and therefore subject to suppression on account of the failure of the police to advise Jones in advance of his rights pursuant to Miranda. The requirements of Miranda apply only if custodial interrogation has taken place; there must be both “custody” and “interrogation” at the same time. See, e.g., California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1123-25, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam). The government contests each of these elements of “custodial interrogation”; it argues that Jones was not in “custody,” as that term is used for Miranda purposes,⁴ and that, even if he was, the statement in question was volunteered and was not made in response to interrogation. We do not reach the question whether Jones was in custody, for we agree with the government that, even if he was, the incriminating statement was not a product of police interrogation. We further conclude that there was ample eviden-tiary support for the judge’s finding that Jones’ admission that he was holding the drugs for others was volunteered and spontaneous.

A. The standard of review.

In reviewing the trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress statements on Miranda grounds, we defer to her findings of evidentiary fact. In re E.A.H., 612 A.2d 836, 838 (D.C.1992). “[W]e review findings of historical fact only for clear error, and give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges.” United States v. Guiterrez, 92 F.3d 468, 471 (7th Cir.1996). Moreover, “the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom” must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the trial court. Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C.1991) (en banc). As the government argues in its brief, “this [cjourt must defer to Judge Beck’s findings of fact, which establish what happened and determine the sequence of events.” (Quotation marks omitted.)

But in this type of case, as in any other, this court must “determine the ultimate question of law de novo.” E.A.H., supra, 612 A.2d at 838. “Whether, on the duly established facts, [Jones] was subjected to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings is a question of law.” Reid v. United States, 581 A.2d 359, 363 (D.C.1990). More particularly, “[t]he question whether [Jones’] rights were scrupulously honored, including whether police conduct constitutes interrogation, is a question of law.” Stewart v. United States, 668 A.2d 857, 863 (D.C.1995) (quotation marks omitted). “Accordingly, we review de novo the [trial] judge’s determination that the [questioning] of [Jones] regarding his identity did not violate the strictures of Miranda.” Thomas v. United States, 731 A.2d 415, 422 (D.C.1999).

B. Application of Miranda standard to Jones’ statement.

In its seminal decision in Miranda, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the advent of modern police interrogation may have resulted in the generation of coerced confessions. Miranda, supra note 1, 384 U.S. at 445-58, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 435, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000). The Court was of the opinion that “the coercion inherent in custodial interrogation blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary statements, and thus heightens the risk that an individual will not be accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself.” Dickerson, supra, 530 U.S. at 435, 120 S.Ct. 2326 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 439, 86 S.Ct. 1602) (ellipsis and quotation marks omitted). The Court laid down “concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 442, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Under these guidelines, the admissibility in evidence of any statement obtained during the custodial interrogation of a suspect would depend on whether the police had advised the suspect, in advance, of certain specified rights which are accorded to him by the law.⁵

In formulating these guidelines, the Supreme Court made it clear that

[a]ny statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated. ... Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.

Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Mitchell, supra note 4, 746 A.2d at 891.

Fourteen years after Miranda, the Supreme Court undertook to elaborate upon the meaning of “interrogation” as used in that landmark decision:

[T]he term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Innis, supra, 446 U.S. at 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682 (footnotes omitted). In the present case, Jones and the government both rely on the Court’s definition of “interrogation” in Innis, but they differ as to the meaning of the Court’s language and as to its application to the present record.

According to Jones, the quoted passage from Innis means that interrogation includes all express questioning, and not simply questioning that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. In Jones’ view, the qualifying words in the latter part of the quoted sentence do not apply to “express questioning,” but only to other “words or actions.” Id. at 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682. This means, as Jones sees it, that the police may not ask a suspect in custody any question at all, no matter how unlikely it is to elicit an incriminating response, without first apprising him of his rights under Miranda,⁶ Such a construction of the critical sentence in Innis may be plausible as a matter of syntax, but it has been rejected by numerous authorities, and we do not find it persuasive.

In United States v. Bogle, 325 U.S.App.D.C. 63, 114 F.3d 1271, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 938, 118 S.Ct. 350, 139 L.Ed.2d 272 (1997), the United States Court of Appeals rejected a contention essentially identical to the one urged upon us by Jones. The court relied on authorities holding that

even in cases involving express questioning, there is no interrogation triggering the protections of Miranda unless, in the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s questions were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” (Citations omitted.)

We agree with these circuits that only questions that are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information in the specific circumstances of the case constitute interrogation within the protections of Miranda. As the Supreme Court explained in Innis, “ ‘Interrogation,’ as conceptualized in the Miranda opinion, must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself.” 446 U.S. at 300[, 100 S.Ct. 1682].... A question that is not likely to elicit an incriminating response is not inherently coercive and therefore should not trigger the protections of Miranda. Bogle, supra, 325 U.S.App.D.C. at 67, 114 F.3d at 1275; see also United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377, 385-86 (7th Cir.1989) (“In our opinion, questions such as ‘what is your name?’ and ‘where do you live?’ will not usually constitute interrogation within the meaning of Miranda”-, this is true even if these questions are asked at the time of arrest, rather than during the booking process); Guiterrez, supra, 92 F.3d at 471 (“Prior to or after arresting a suspect, law enforcement officers may ask preliminary questions as to identity, but they may not conduct a custodial interrogation”); United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2000) (“a definition of interrogation that included any question posed by a police officer would be broader than that required to implement the policy of Miranda itself; [o]nly questions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect amount to interrogation”) (citations and quotation marks omitted; punctuation altered for clarity); see generally Wayne R. LaFave et al, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 6.7(b), at 546, 550-53 (2d ed. 1999 & Supp.2001). We agree with these authorities,⁷ and we therefore conclude that Jones was not subjected to custodial interrogation before he made his incriminating statement.

Jones appears to contend that the actions of the officers in approaching Jones, telling the other men to cross the street, picking up the drugs, and asking Jones his name collectively amounted to interrogation. But when the officers observed Jones engage in what reasonably appeared to them to be criminal activity, it was surely their duty to approach him, rather than to ignore the event and to allow a suspect to depart. It was likewise entirely reasonable to take possession of the contraband and to order civilians who apparently were not directly involved to leave the immediate location where Jones was being apprehended. If asking Jones his name, standing alone, did not constitute interrogation within the meaning of Miranda, then the above-described actions on the part of the officers prior to the request that Jones identify himself did not convert a simple “what’s your name” inquiry into inteiTogation reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. If we were to accept Jones’ context-based contentions, then routine, conventional, and altogether appropriate conduct on the part of law enforcement officers would run afoul of Miranda even where no incriminating statement was sought or reasonably likely to be elicited.

We do not suggest that a request that a suspect identify himself can never contravene Miranda where such an inquiry is posed before the suspect has been advised of his rights. For example, in the very case in which we recognized the “routine booking exception” to Miranda, Thomas, supra, 731 A.2d at 420-21, we held that, in the particular context of that case, the extensive questioning of the defendant as to his identity — i.e., whether he was the “Tony” being sought by the police — was reasonably likely, and indeed intended, to elicit an incriminating response. Id. at 421-26. The circumstances under which Jones was asked to identify himself, however, bore no resemblance to the situation in Thomas, or to those in the other decisions cited in Thomas, 731 A.2d at 423-26, in which inquiries regarding the defendant’s identity were held to be in violation of Miranda.

In this case, the trial judge, who observed the witnesses and heard their testimony, found that Jones’ statement was “spontaneous” and that Jones “volunteered” the information that he had been holding the drugs. Given the lack of the slightest logical nexus between the officer’s question and the defendant’s statement, it is difficult to understand how the judge could reasonably have found otherwise. In any event, the judge’s findings are fully supported by the evidence, and we perceive no error of law.

Affirmed.

1 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2 . After Jones had acknowledged “holding" the drugs, the officers asked him additional questions, e.g., "if he wanted to volunteer information on who[m] he bought it from, stuff like that.” According to Officer Groomes, however, Jones "didn’t want to say anything about that.” It appears that the officers also posed these substantive questions ío Jones without giving him a Miranda warning, but by this time Jones had already made his incriminating statement.

3 . Jones testified on his own behalf at the motions hearing, but the judge did not credit his testimony.

4 . "In order to constitute ‘custody’ for Miranda purposes, the suspect must be subject to the ‘functional equivalent of formal arrest.' ” Mitchell v. United States, 746 A.2d 877, 890 (D.C.2000) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)); see also Morris v. United States, 728 A.2d 1210, 1216 (D.C.1999). At the motions hearing, the trial judge advised Jones’ attorney during the presentation of the evidence that "I'm prepared to find that [Jones] was in custody based on the testimony you’ve already gotten.” Rightly or wrongly, the prosecutor did not challenge this finding. Indeed, during the argument, the prosecutor affirmatively referred to Jones as having been in custody at the time Jones admitted holding the drugs. In light of our disposition of the appeal on other grounds, we need not determine whether the government may now seek to avoid its arguably improvident concession. Cf. Jones I, supra, 726 A.2d at 191 (concurring opinion).

5 . The suspect must be advised “that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602. This familiar recitation has come to be known as a “Miranda warning.”

6 . Jones’ counsel accepts, as she must, the proposition that there are certain recognized exceptions to Miranda. See, e.g., New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) (public safety exception); Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 110 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990) (plurality opinion) (routine booking question exception); and possibly Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990) (Miranda warning not required where officer poses as suspect's cellmate). According to Jones, Mirandas prophylactic rule permits questions authorized by these decisions, but no others, without prior advice of Miranda rights.

We cannot agree that such an inflexible result was intended either in Miranda or in Innis. Moreover, we do not believe that the "routine booking exception” recognized in Muniz is really an "exception” in the sense that it excuses compliance with Miranda. Rather, Muniz is more readily understood as an application of Miranda principles. Ordinarily, questions posed to a suspect regarding his identity are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. In circumstances where such questions may reasonably be expected to elicit incriminating information, however, Miranda warnings are required. See Thomas, supra, 731 A.2d at 423-26, and our discussion; infra, pp. 283-284.

7 . Our agreement with the reasoning of Bogle, supra, is further reinforced by notions of comity. Cf. Hornstein v. Barry, 560 A.2d 530, 536-37 n. 15 (D.C.1989) (en banc).