indicating that Miranda warnings are not required unless the accused is subject to custodial interrogation
How later courts described this case
- indicating that Miranda warnings are not required unless the accused is subject to custodial interrogation
- no compelling reason to interpret Const 1963, art 1, § 17 to require Miranda warnings when the suspect becomes the focus of an investigation where parallel provision of the federal constitution had been interpreted to require warnings only when an individual is taken into custody
- discussing the focus test applied by some panels of this Court to the issue of whether a Miranda warning was required at the time of the search in this case
- “[T]he fact that an individual has become the ‘focus’ of an investigation does not trigger the Miranda requirement.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Archer, J.
I concur and have signed the majority opinion. I write to add that I would inquire, looking at all the relevant circumstances, whether, at the time of the interrogation, a reasonable person 1 would have believed that "he ha[d] been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Archer, J._
"[T]he only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 442 ; 104 S Ct 3138 ; 82 L Ed 2d 317 (1984).