Hunter v. State

How later courts described this case

• concluding that defendant was not in custody where he was ordered .out of the house along with other people,“was told to put his hands on his head, and then was directed to sit on the sidewalk”; defendant was “asked if he would go with the police to answer some questions”; defendant sat in back of patrol car with a detective; and when defendant arrived at the station, he was.'told he was free to leave, that he was not under arrest, and that he could have a ride home
• holding that interview was not custodial prior to the reading of the Miranda - 34 - warnings, in part, because the defendant was not a person of interest at the time he went to the police station, but had been identified as an acquaintance of a person who had already been taken into custody; “the purpose of the interview was to learn about Mr. Victorino and not necessarily about Mr. Hunter.”
• holding that interview was not custodial prior to the reading of the Miranda warnings, in part, because the defendant was not a person of interest at the time he went to the police station, but had been identified as an acquaintance of a person who had already been taken into custody; “the purpose of the interview was to learn about Mr. Victo-rino and not necessarily about Mr. Hunter.”
• holding that the defendant was not in custody where he was voluntarily driven to station by police, he was confronted with some evidence about another suspect, he was not handcuffed, and he was reminded several times that he could go home and officers would take him

Written by the judges who cited it.