When does a Terry stop turn into a custodial interrogation invoking the need for Miranda warnings?

DEA agents were conducting routine "interdictions and investigations" at the O'Hare Airport on passengers arriving or departing on flights between New York and Chicago due to the flows of drugs and money between the two cities. The agents observed a women who looked around nervously before walking to a phone bank to make a credit card call.

Agent Stewart approached the woman, Yusuff, introducing himself as a police officer, and asked whether she had taken the flight from New York. She replied that she had, that she was visiting a sister who was ill. When asked for identification, Yusuff replied that she did not have any identification other than the name that was on her calling card. After further questioning, agents learned that Yusuff could not name where her sister lived or worked. AT this point, Agent Steward informed Yusuff that she was free to leave but that he and Officer Martin would like to ask her a few more questions. Yusuff stated that she understood.

Yusuff agreed to a search of her bag, which led to the discovery of several items of clothing. After searching the bag, Officer Martin asked for permission to pat down Yusuff. Yusuff responded that she did not mind being patted down. Officer Martin placed her hand on the pocket of Yusuff's coat and felt a hard lump. "What's that?" inquired Martin. "Drugs," Yusuff replied. "How much?" Martin asked. "700 grams," replied Yusuff.

Following Yusuff's statement, the officers took her to a more secluded area of the terminal, removed the bundle of drugs from her jacket and placed Yusuff under arrest, reading her Miranda rights at this point for the first time.

Did the conversation between Martin and Yusuff during the pat down constitute a custodial interrogation and consequently require the reading of Yusuff's Miranda rights?

See United States v. Yusuff, 96 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1996).

ANSWER:

The court held that a suspect must be both in custody and subject to interrogation to trigger the need for Miranda warnings. In a de novo review of the trial court's determination that Yusuff was not subject to "custodial interrogation," the court noted that Yusuff was in a public, busy concourse, and that the pat down was consensual. Furthermore, moments before the pat down, Yusuff had been informed that she was free to leave. When Martin felt the lump, it was considered reasonable for her to ask what it was. The court held that a reasonable person, after consenting to a brief pat down in an airport would not perceive herself to be in custody. Therefore no Miranda right requirement was triggered.

___________________________

Tiffany Gilbert

Emory University School of Law