Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Court of Appeals weighs whether DCFS interview on apartment landing was custodial for Miranda purposes in State v. Hansen
Summary
The Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Hansen on whether statements made by the defendant during an interview at her apartment landing, after Department of Child and Family Services workers and uniformed officers arrived, were made in custody (requiring Miranda warnings) and whether any suppression error would be harmless.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Hansen over whether statements made by the defendant during a doorstep interview were custodial for Miranda purposes and therefore required suppression.
Public defender Jennifer Foresta argued the initial interview at the defendant’s apartment was compelled and non‑voluntary because government agents limited Hanson’s freedom of movement, repeatedly ordered her to go outside to speak, and kept an officer between Hanson and her child. Foresta told the court that officers repeatedly told Hanson, “You don’t have a choice right now. You need to go outside and talk to them,” and that the presence and conduct of the DCFS worker and two uniformed officers produced the same “inherently coercive pressures” associated with station-house…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
