Submitted: January 2, 2014
John S. Taylor, Esq. Deputy Attorney General Delaware Department of Justice Attorney for the State.
Kester I. Crosse, Esq. Office of the Public Defender Delaware Department of Justice Attorney for the Defendant.
DECISION AFTER TRIAL
Honorable Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge
On March 28, 2013, Defendant Tywana Selby (hereinafter "Defendant"), while in the New Castle County Courthouse, allegedly made illegal contact with an individual in violation of an existing no contact order. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with Breach of Release pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 2113(c)(2). Trial was held on January 2, 2014, and the Court reserved its decision.
On March 28, 2013, Defendant was arrested and charged with Breach of Release stemming from a no contact order in place to protect an alleged victim in a pending Assault Third Degree charge. Corporal Michael Purnell of the Delaware Capitol Police responded to a reported disturbance that had occurred on the Fifth Floor of the New Castle County Courthouse. Upon his arrival, Corporal Purnell made contact with Defendant, who had allegedly made derogatory comments to an individual with whom she was ordered to have no contact (hereinafter "Victim"). Corporal Purnell interviewed multiple witnesses, Victim, and Defendant, and determined that Defendant had made contact with Victim. Corporal Purnell ran a computer check via DELJIS and determined that Defendant had been ordered to have no contact with Victim.
Corporal Purnell took Defendant to the Capitol Police area in the Courthouse, where he proceeded to collect Defendant's fingerprints. During the fingerprinting process, Defendant, without solicitation, stated that she made prohibited contact with Victim.
Defendant contends that the statement made to Corporal Purnell should be suppressed, as Defendant was not given Miranda warnings prior to her statement. Defendant argues that even though Corporal Purnell never interrogated Defendant while in custody, he should have advised her of her Miranda rights. Defendant bases her contention on the fact that Corporal Purnell had prior experience with individuals in custody making unsolicited, incriminating statements.
The State contends that Defendant's statement to Corporal Purnell is admissible and proves that Defendant violated the no contact order. The State asserts that Miranda warnings were not required because Defendant made the statement voluntarily, while Corporal Purnell was going through the intake process, and it was not a result of an interrogation.
The case dispositive issue before the Court is whether the Defendant's admission should be suppressed because Corporal Purnell did not recite the Miranda warnings to Defendant while she was in custody. Officers are required to provide Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation.Miranda "warnings are required only where (1) questioning of a suspect rises to the level of' interrogation'; and (2) the interrogation occurs while the suspect is either in 'custody' or in a 'custodial setting." A custodial interrogation is "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way." Custodial situations occur when an objectively reasonable man would not feel as though he was free to leave a particular area,  and when the police officer knows or should know ...