Prosecutor tells panel suspect likely not in Miranda custody; court pressed on officer statements

A separate strand of the oral argument focused on whether a statement by Joseph Sims at a police station was made in custodial circumstances requiring Miranda warnings.

Nathan Sugg, deputy prosecutor for Snohomish County, acknowledged to the panel that "I think he probably didn't feel free to leave," but urged the court that custody for Miranda purposes is a distinct factual inquiry about whether a reasonable person's movement was curtailed to the degree associated with formal arrest. "Typically, that's been understood to mean have handcuffs on," Sugg told the panel, noting custody depends on context, including where in the station the encounter occurred.

Sugg pointed to the record that the first officer who spoke with the defendant said, "I'm sorry, I'm not arresting you," and that Sims was in a publicly accessible vestibule rather than an interrogation room. The prosecutor argued the statement at issue did not factor in the State's closing and was not central to the prosecution's theory, and asked the panel to affirm the convictions on that basis.

Panel questioning explored whether the combination of uniformed officers, an enclosed station environment, and the defendant's limited movement could constitute custody as a matter of fact. Counsel and the panel agreed custody is a factual question that turns on the totality of circumstances rather than on a single factor.

The panel took the question under advisement along with the broader self-representation issue; no ruling was announced at argument.