Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure Miranda Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals weighs whether DCFS interview outside apartment was custodial for Miranda purposes
Summary
In State v. Hansen, defense and prosecution disputed whether an interview conducted by a DCFS worker and two officers on an apartment landing was custodial and therefore required Miranda warnings; the appellate panel heard extended questioning and took the case under advisement.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Hansen (case no. 20220178) over whether statements the defendant made during an apartment interview were the product of custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. Jennifer Foresta represented Miss Hansen; Christopher Ballard argued for the state.
Foresta told the court the lower court erred in denying a suppression motion and that statements elicited in an unwarned apartment interview should be excluded. Defense counsel urged that the presence of a DCFS worker and two uniformed officers, their control of the doorway and supervision of the defendant’s young child, and repeated statements by one officer that the defendant “didn’t have a choice” to talk turned the encounter into a custodial setting requiring Miranda warnings. Foresta emphasized that the defendant had no meaningful ability to terminate the encounter, that a DCFS worker directed the child’s movement, and that the defendant’s body language and requests (asking to speak on the landing) reflected coercion rather than voluntariness.
The state countered that Hansen voluntarily invited the DCFS worker into her apartment, suggested going outside for the interview, and directed certain aspects of how the conversation would occur. Ballard argued the defendant retained the “freedom to control the circumstances” of the interview and that the totality of circumstances pointed away from a station-house–style custodial setting. Ballard highlighted that the officers did not display weapons or handcuff the defendant and that a family member briefly approached during the encounter, which the state said evidenced a public, not an oppressive, environment.
Panel members pressed both sides on whether the critical statements by officers — for example, “you don’t have a choice right now” and “I’m gonna stay right here, you’re gonna go talk to them” — transformed what began as a voluntary encounter into custodial interrogation. Judges also questioned the role of DCFS authority and whether the prospect of child removal heightened coercive pressure. Both sides acknowledged that a ruling for the defense could require suppression of statements and, given the lack of a harmlessness analysis in the state’s briefing, potentially require reversal and a new trial.
No opinion was announced. The court thanked counsel, took the matter under advisement and said it will issue a written decision.
Why it matters: The appeal raises recurring questions about when interactions with social-services investigators and police at a private residence become custodial for Miranda purposes, and whether parental concern about child removal can create the “coercive pressures” that necessitate warnings and suppression.
