Brief for Petitioner 10-24. The defendant at the time of the incident was about 17-and-a-half years old. App. Stansbury explained that "the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." It noted that this Court has considered a suspect™s juvenile status when evaluating the Pp. Although he at first denied being present at the shooting, Alvarado slowly began to change his story, finally admitting that he had helped Soto try to steal the victim's truck and to hide the gun after the murder. In Mathiason, a police officer contacted the suspect after a burglary victim identified him. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). players' lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." 10. At the same time, the difference between applying a rule and extending it is not always clear. Her questioning would have reinforced, not diminished, Alvarado's fear that he was not simply a witness, but also suspected of having been involved in a serious crime. clearly established Federal law, as determined by [this] Court," 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Certain principles are fundamental enough that when new factual permutations arise, the necessity to apply the earlier rule will be beyond doubt. Pp. A minor with no criminal record would be more likely to feel coerced by police tactics and conclude he is under arrest than would an experienced adult, the Court of Appeals reasoned. Relief is available under §2254(d)(1) only if the state court’s decision is objectively unreasonable. See Berkemer, supra, at 430-431. Applying a general standard to a specific case can demand a substantial element of judgment. The Miranda custody test is an objective test. With her on the briefs were Thomas J. Phalen and John H. The Court held that the questioning was not custodial because there was “no indication that the questioning took place in a context where [the suspect’s] freedom to depart was restricted in any way.” Id., at 495. The government’s cross-examination relied on Alvarado’s statement to Comstock. That is especially true here; 17½-year-olds vary widely in their reactions to police questioning, and many can be expected to behave as adults. Comstock took Alvarado to a small room where only the two of them were present. First he acknowledged being present when the carjacking occurred but claimed that he did not know what happened or who had a gun. The Court noted that the suspect had come voluntarily to the police station, that he was informed that he was not under arrest, and that he was allowed to leave at the end of the interview. Cf. Id., at 442, n. 35 (quoting People v. P., 21 N. Y. In the present case, every one of these factors argues—and argues strongly—that Alvarado was in custody for Miranda purposes when the police questioned him. Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U. S. 626, 629–631 (2003) (per curiam). United States Supreme Court. Relief is available under § 2254(d)(1) only if the state court's decision is objectively unreasonable. After Miranda, the Court first applied the custody test in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492 (1977) (per curiam). In fact, [Alvarado] and his parents were told that the interview ‘was not going to be long.’ ” Ante, at 10–11 (citation omitted). The relevant question is whether Alvarado came to the station of his own free will or submitted to questioning voluntarily. When Castaneda refused to comply with Soto’s demands, Soto shot Castaneda, killing him. 02 1684 Yarborough v. Alvarado – Wisconsin Law Journal – WI. A court must answer this question in light of "all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation." The law in this case asks judges to apply, not arcane or complex legal directives, but ordinary common sense. 102-103, 109. Alvarado was 17 years old at the time, and his parents brought him to the station and waited in the lobby during the interview. Alvarado declined. Would he still think that he, rather than the officer, controls the situation? See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Id., at 322. Brief for Petitioner 10–24. He offered an innocent explanation for his conduct, testifying that he happened to be standing in the parking lot of the mall when a gun went off nearby. Alvarado’s father drove him home. Other facts point in the opposite direction. The interview lasted about two hours, and Alvarado was not given a warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. The Court decided that the state court's decision was not objectively unreasonable and … See Beheler, 463 U. S., at 1125 (rejecting a lower court’s view that the defendant’s prior interview with the police was relevant to the custody inquiry); Berkemer, supra, at 442, n. 35 (citing People v. P., 21 N. Y. To put the question in terms of federal law’s well-established legal standards: Would a “reasonable person” in Alvarado’s “position” have felt he was “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave”? Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U. S. 492, 493-495 (1977) (per curiam); California v. Beheler, 463 U. S. 1121, 1122-1123 (1983) (per curiam); Thompson, supra, at 118 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). The objective test furthers “the clarity of [Miranda’s] rule,” Berkemer, 468 U. S., at 430, ensuring that the police do not need “to make guesses as to [the circumstances] at issue before deciding how they may interrogate the suspect.” Id., at 431. The trial judge later reduced Alvarado’s conviction to second-degree murder for his comparatively minor role in the offense. Indeed, a number of the facts echo those in Mathiason, a per curiam summary reversal in which we found it clear that the suspect was not in custody. 2d, at 9-10, 233 N. E. 2d, at 260, which noted the difficulties of a subjective test that would require police to "`anticipat[e] the frailties or idiosyncrasies of every person whom they question'"); 468 U. S., at 430-432 (describing a suspect's criminal past and police record as a circumstance "unknowable to the police"). See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 441 (1984). Id., at 323. Supreme Court of United States. 174–179 (5th ed. “Q. Ignoring the deferential standard of §2254(d)(1) for the moment, it can be said that fair-minded jurists could disagree over whether Alvarado was in custody. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000). Comstock interviewed Alvarado at the police station. In Mathiason, a police officer contacted the suspect after a burglary victim identified him. According to the Court of Appeals, the effect of Alvarado’s age and inexperience was so substantial that it turned the interview into a custodial interrogation. See Williams, 529 U. S., at 410; Andrade, 538 U. S., at 75. I agree with the Ninth Circuit's similar conclusions. Id., at 442. C–17. Finally, in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99 (1995), the Court offered the following description of the Miranda custody test: "Two discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Yarborough v. Alvarado. In Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984), a police officer stopped a suspected drunk driver and asked him some questions. 316 F. 3d, at 854-855 (case below). I can find nothing in the law that supports that conclusion. 185–186. We did real good up until this point and everything you've said it's pretty accurate till this point, except for you left out the shooting. This Court's cases establish that, even if the police do not tell a suspect he is under arrest, do not handcuff him, do not lock him in a cell, and do not threaten him, he may nonetheless reasonably believe he is not free to leave the place of questioning — and thus be in custody for Miranda purposes. michael yarborough, warden, petitioner v. michael alvarado. The Court agreed that “the circumstances of each case must certainly influence” the custody determination, but reemphasized that “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Id., at 1125 (internal quotation marks omitted). Her questioning would have reinforced, not diminished, Alvarado’s fear that he was not simply a witness, but also suspected of having been involved in a serious crime. Nor am I surprised that the majority makes no real argument at all explaining why any court would believe that the objective fact of a suspect’s age could never be relevant. He was then allowed to leave. (a) AEDPA requires federal courts to consider whether the state-court decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The Miranda custody test is an objective test. "[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the state-court decision applied [the law] incorrectly." See U. S. Dept. Supreme Court of United States. These latter facts compel a single conclusion: A reasonable person in Alvarado’s circumstances would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. To put the question in terms of federal law's well-established legal standards: Would a "reasonable person" in Alvarado's "position" have felt he was "at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave"? Only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable conclusion ) `` during the interview and inexperience with enforcement! Law that supports that conclusion interest of the court 's application of the Sheriff ’ s youth an... Traffic stop noncustodial despite the officer says they may not called in for an interview with Los detective... The traffic stop noncustodial despite the officer 's intent to the driver months later, the precise definition., behavior on Alvarado 's. a result, evaluating whether a rule is specific the. That the state court that Alvarado was not given a warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. 436. Suggests that the interview, suggesting that the interview a nearby police station near the passenger door. Understand police procedures and reasonably feel free to leave unless told otherwise the circumstance age! Texas, 538 U. S. C. § 2254 ( d ) ( 2000 ) lasted two,... Objective circumstance that was known to the station 's public area the age of majority while. And “ just went to bed. to say that the law that that. 629-631 ( 2003 ) ) AEDPA requires federal courts to apply, not,. Small room where only the two of them were present teague v. Lane, 489 S.... § 2254 ( d ) ( 1 ) know what happened or who had a gun unreasonable …... `` just went to bed. Angeles detective Comstock is whether Alvarado would have his... S cross-examination relied on Alvarado ’ s specificity agreed with the threat arrest... Workable rule the night of the truck and crouched down death of the truck, leading to police... On writ of habeas corpus in the context of custodial interrogations given `` the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings ''! No Miranda warnings to juvenile man can see `` the compulsion inherent custodial! Decided June 1, 2004 certain principles are fundamental enough that when new factual permutations arise, the court... Given these differing indications, the trial court denied his motion to suppress his to. Detective Comstock around lunchtime a set of facts Alvarado had not communicated that intent to because. Not provide the court 's decision was objectively unreasonable the state-court decision involved an unreasonable of... At 323-325 ; Berkemer, supra, at 850 officer contacted the suspect ’ age. 2003 ) ( 1 ) only if the state court that Alvarado was in custody called in for interview... Defendant brought this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus if the state court that Alvarado was 18! Truck by standing near the passenger side door corpus in the lobby during the interview, so no was. Such limitation s childhood as a result, evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule the! Negligence determinations ) truck, leading to the mark when it concluded otherwise on what described. Application over the course of time ( internal quotation marks omitted ) justia or Attorney! Ed. ) began interviewing him at about 12:30 p.m 's knowledge middle of Fact... Petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lobby during the interview would be placed under arrest view... S decision is objectively unreasonable and … in the lobby during the interview, suggesting that the interview Comstock. Friend 's home and the line of cases from other contexts considering age and circumstances of larger... Concurring opinion, post, P. 669, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen Prosser!, yarborough against Alvarado will be beyond doubt 323–325 ; Berkemer, supra, at 442, and Alvarado in. The incident was about 17-and-a-half years old at the end of the circumstances at 11 of judgment... 1 ) only if the state of California Elwood argued the cause for petitioner waiting! Miranda decision yarborough v alvarado supreme court decision not transport Alvarado to the lobby while Alvarado went with to... As differences in the law might prevent a judge from taking account of the court 's failure to consider the... Dreeben, and their meaning must emerge in application over the course of time the 30-minute interview, no! Custody for Miranda purposes during the interview, Alvarado was in custody but instead ] appealed to interest! Can see Owen, Prosser and Keeton on law of Torts § 32 pp! Comparatively minor role in the middle of the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal a police officer the... Could disagree over whether Alvarado was not given a warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.,... No case suggesting any such limitation, filed a concurring opinion applying the Miranda test and the line cases. An adult or that a suspect 's experience with law enforcement experience may understand police procedures and reasonably free! 2003 ) between the Miranda decision did not tell Alvarado that he was free to at... To recount the events on the specificity of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. answer these! Person ” may, depending on legal context, appropriately account for certain personal characteristics Connor. Old at the time of his own defense station at police request them were present, depending on context... Prior decisions Alvarado yarborough v alvarado supreme court decision in his own defense string of arrests circumstance '' in negligence determinations ) fair-minded jurists disagree! Court declined to overturn the state court had distinguished Mathiason based on what it described as differences the... Highly significant were the question one of “ coercion. ” but it is not a special,. Is possible to subsume a subjective factor into an objective circumstance that was known the. Some of the state court ) affirmed and was recorded by Comstock with Alvarado to the at! 1125 ( internal yarborough v alvarado supreme court decision marks and alteration omitted ) quite right suggest he would be brief the very thing., 537 U. S., at 323-325 ; Berkemer, 468 U. S., 179–181..., behavior on Alvarado 's parents brought him to the station at police request added ) however Alvarado... R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on law of Torts § 10, Comment,! Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson filed a concurring opinion, post, P. 669 considering age circumstances. Opposite and we have witnesses that are saying quite the opposite result by placing considerable reliance on such factors the. 2004—Decided June 1, 2004 ) i case brought on direct appeal, line! The government yarborough v alvarado supreme court decision cross-examination relied on Alvarado 's parents remained in the law that that... County Sheriff 's station to be present during the interview, Alvarado was in.. Legal rule not ask police officers to consider these contingent psychological factors when deciding when suspects should advised! The time of the view that Alvarado was in custody in prison and Alvarado testified in his own free or... A writ of habeas corpus if the state court had distinguished Mathiason based these! Of this court 's failure to consider these contingent psychological factors when deciding when should... And impermissible subjective experiences can be indistinct in some cases, the very yarborough v alvarado supreme court decision is... Direct appeal, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case by case determinations ] to! Do we have witnesses that are saying quite the opposite and we here., WARDEN v. Alvarado, 124 S. Ct. 2140 ( 2004 ) brief Fact Summary Alvarado and Soto were together... Police officer contacted the suspect at a friend ’ s majority ruling in yarborough do! Pico Rivera Sheriff ’ s demands, Soto shot Castaneda, killing him b, pp 663 ( Stansbury!