New North Carolina Appellate Cases on the Meaning of Custody Under Miranda v. Arizona

Probably the most litigated issue involving Miranda v. Arizona is the meaning of custody under its ruling that requires law enforcement officers to give prescribed warnings when conducting custodial interrogation. My last post (May 24, 2016), available here, discussed the custody issue involving traffic stops. Since then there have been three published North Carolina appellate cases on the custody issue in other contexts, which will be the focus of this post. Meaning of Custody. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), California v. Beheler, 511 U.S. 318 (1994), and other cases that a person is in custody under the Miranda rule when officers have formally arrested the person—for any offense, whether a felony or misdemeanor—or have restrained a person’s movement to a degree associated with a formal arrest. The North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332 (2001), later ruling, 355 N.C. 264 (2002), made clear that it follows the Court’s rulings on the meaning of custody and disavowed inconsistent statements in prior North Carolina appellate cases. State v. Hammonds. The defendant in Hammonds was placed on watch in a 24-hour facility after being involuntarily committed based on a magistrate’s finding that he was mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others. The next day two detectives went to the facility and questioned him about a recent armed robbery without giving Miranda warnings. He made incriminating statements, which he moved to suppress on the grounds that his statements violated the Miranda [...]