People v. Garcia, Supreme Court Case No. 17SA219
Citation | 409 P.3d 312 |
Decision Date | 11 December 2017 |
Docket Number | Supreme Court Case No. 17SA219 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sylvia GARCIA, Defendant-Appellee |
Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant: Dave Young, District Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial District, Michael Whitney, Deputy District Attorney, Brighton, Colorado.
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee: Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Allen Chaney, Deputy Public Defender, Brighton, Colorado.
En Banc
¶1 When Northglenn police officers went to Defendant Sylvia Garcia's house to do a welfare check on a child, they found an elderly woman in distress on the living room floor. They also noticed a padlock on the refrigerator in the kitchen and feces and bugs throughout the house. Medical personnel, additional police officers, firefighters, and a building inspector soon poured into the residence.
¶2 Garcia made several statements to the officers at the house, including that she was a caretaker of the elderly woman (her mother) and that the padlock was to keep her brother from eating food in the refrigerator. Garcia was later charged with two offenses relating to neglect of her mother and one count of child abuse.
¶3 The trial court granted Garcia's motion to suppress the statements she made during this encounter with the police at her house, concluding Garcia had been subjected to custodial interrogation and had not received a Miranda advisement. The People appeal that order.
¶4 Because we conclude Garcia was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the encounter, we reverse the trial court's order suppressing the statements.
¶5 The following facts are based on the trial court's findings and undisputed testimony at the motions hearing.
¶6 Northglenn police officers received a report of a child living in dangerous conditions at Garcia's home. This prompted officers to conduct a welfare check. While speaking with a teenager who answered the door, three officers—including Officers Thomas and Smith—heard what sounded like a woman moaning. They forced entry into the house and found an elderly woman, Garcia's mother,1 on a mattress on the living room floor. She was surrounded by dogs jumping on or around her, and she appeared to be asking for help. The house smelled of urine, feces covered the floors, and the walls crawled with bugs. They called for medical assistance and additional officers.
¶7 Garcia came downstairs. Officers Smith and Thomas both asked Garcia if anyone else was in the house. Garcia told Officer Thomas no one else was home. Officer Smith said to Garcia, Garcia first responded no, but when Officer Smith asked again, she said her brother was upstairs.
¶8 Officers Lauck and Spresser joined the scene. Garcia gave Officer Lauck permission to go upstairs and search. Officers conducted a sweep of the rest of the house with their weapons in a "low ready" position, where the gun is held ready to fire, but pointed toward the ground. Officers Lauck and Spresser found Garcia's brother, Joseph, upstairs in a room filled with cups of urine, broken glass, feces, and insects. With his fingers stuffed in his mouth, Joseph was standing on a mattress and shaking. He told the officers he is schizophrenic. The officers discovered Joseph had an unrelated outstanding arrest warrant, so they took him into custody.
¶9 After coming back downstairs and seeing the padlock on the refrigerator, Officer Spresser asked Garcia why it was there. Garcia told Officer Spresser it was to keep her brother from eating the food in the refrigerator. According to Officer Spresser, she spoke with Garcia in a conversational tone in either the living room or the kitchen and that was the only question she asked Garcia.
¶10 Firefighters and a building inspector arrived. At some point during the incident, the building inspector condemned the house, put notices on the front door, and said no one could be inside.
¶11 The trial court found that the police ordered Garcia outside. Officer Thomas testified at the motions hearing:
I don't remember asking her to come outside. It was kind of a chaotic scene. There [were] a lot of people there coming in and out. I don't know if she was already outside and then I approached her outside. I don't remember asking her to step out and talk.
According to Officer Thomas, he was a couple of feet away from Garcia outside the house and there were likely two other officers around. Garcia largely ignored Officer Thomas, just responding, "I don't know," to his questions. She also kept using her phone. Officer Thomas couldn't recall whether he asked her or told her to stop using her phone and to talk to him. Regardless, she continued using her phone. Officer Thomas asked Garcia who took care of the mother. Garcia responded she was the caretaker. The conversation lasted a few minutes.
¶12 Officer Smith also spoke with Garcia outside, although he could not recall whether it was before or after Garcia spoke with Officer Thomas. He admitted he raised his voice when Garcia kept denying knowing what was going on and said something along the lines of "Come on, seriously?" Officer Smith also testified that he said, Garcia told Officer Smith that she and her sister were the caretakers of the mother, but otherwise, continued to deny knowing what was going on. According to Officer Smith, the conversation lasted five to seven minutes, he was three or four feet away from Garcia, and there were several other officers outside during this conversation.
¶13 No one restrained Garcia during this encounter. Although the police officers were armed, they did not direct any of their weapons at Garcia. None of them gave Garcia a Miranda advisement.
¶14 Garcia was later arrested and charged with three counts: (1) Negligent Bodily Injury to an At-Risk Person, § 18-6.5-103(2)(c), C.R.S. (2017); (2) Neglect of an At-Risk Person, § 18-6.5-103(6), C.R.S. (2017); and (3) Child Abuse, § 18-6-401(1), (7)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2017). The first two counts were for the alleged neglect of Garcia's mother and the third for the alleged neglect of one of Garcia's children.
¶15 Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress all statements Garcia made during the encounter. The trial court granted the motion, finding the statements were voluntary, but taken in violation of Miranda. In its analysis at the motions hearing, the trial court said:
¶16 The People bring this interlocutory appeal pursuant to section 16-12-102, C.R.S. (2017), and C.A.R. 4.1.
¶17 We first outline the applicable standard of review for a Miranda custody determination. We then consider the legal standard for what constitutes custody for Miranda purposes, focusing on how location plays into the analysis. Finally, we apply that standard to the facts here, and conclude these circumstances do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes.2
¶18 Whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes presents a mixed question of law and fact. People v. Begay, 2014 CO 41, ¶ 9, 325 P.3d 1026, 1029. We defer to a trial court's findings of fact—provided that they are supported by the record—but we review de novo the trial court's legal conclusion that the facts constitute custody. People v. Sampson, 2017 CO 100, ¶ 16, 404 P.3d 273, 276. We may also consider undisputed facts in the record. People v. Pleshakov, 2013 CO 18, ¶ 16, 298 P.3d 228, 232.
¶19 A person subjected to custodial interrogation by a law enforcement officer is afforded certain procedural protections designed to safeguard rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state may not introduce in its case-in-chief statements made by a defendant during custodial police interrogation unless...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Davis
...the trial court’s legal conclusion that the facts amount to custody for purposes of Miranda . See People v. Garcia , 2017 CO 106, ¶ 18, 409 P.3d 312, 316 ; see also People v. Minjarez , 81 P.3d 348, 353 (Colo. 2003). This court’s analysis is not limited to the factual findings that form the......
-
People v. Eugene
...occurs at the person's home or at a familiar location, it weighs against a finding of custody." People v. Garcia , 2017 CO 106, ¶ 21, 409 P.3d 312. "[T]he area just outside a familiar residence can be a neutral location." Id. The interrogation in this case therefore did not occur in a "poli......
-
People v. Coke
...felt that her freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest." People v. Garcia , 2017 CO 106, ¶ 20, 409 P.3d 312, 317.2 ¶15 Yet Coke was not in custody when she made the statements at issue. Defense counsel conceded as much at the suppression hearing, and th......
-
People v. Cline
...felt that [his] freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest." People v. Garcia , 2017 CO 106, ¶ 20, 409 P.3d 312, 317. It is undisputed that when Cline was questioned he had not been formally arrested. Thus, we must look to "the totality of the circumstanc......