custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warning in Ohio

2025A custodial interrogation occurs when law enforcement officers take a person “into custody or otherwise deprive [him] of his freedom of action in any significant way.” State v. Roberts, 32 Ohio St.3d 225, 226, fn. 1 (1987), quoting Miranda at 444 . {¶ 16} “Determining whether questioning is ‘a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings demands a fact-specific inquiry that asks whether a reasonable person -6- in the suspect's position would have understood himself or herself to be in custody while being questioned.’ ” State v. Myers, 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 57 , quoting Cleveland v. Oles, 201

2023Custodial interrogation is “ ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’ ” State v. Roberts, 32 Ohio St.3d 225, 226 , 513 N.E.2d 720, fn. 1 (1987), quoting Miranda at 444 . {¶ 24} “Determining whether questioning is ‘a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings demands a fact-specific inquiry that asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood himself or herself to be in custody while being questioned.’ ” State v. Myers, 154 Ohio St

2025A custodial interrogation occurs when law enforcement officers take a person “into custody or otherwise deprive [him] of his freedom of action in any significant way.” State v. Roberts, 32 Ohio St.3d 225, 226, fn. 1 (1987), quoting Miranda at 444 . {¶ 16} “Determining whether questioning is ‘a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings demands a fact-specific inquiry that asks whether a reasonable person -6- in the suspect's position would have understood himself or herself to be in custody while being questioned.’ ” State v. Myers, 2018-Ohio-1903, ¶ 57 , quoting Cleveland v. Oles, 201

2025See State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 , 153- 154 (1998) (trial court did not err in finding defendant was not in custody when questioned and, therefore, officers were not required to provide him with Miranda warnings); Cleveland v. Oles, 2017-Ohio-5834, ¶ 29 (considering the totality of the circumstances, the questioning by law enforcement did not rise to the level of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings). -16 Case No. 1-24-62 {¶31} Horton’s second assignment of error is overruled.

2025This type of inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017- Ohio-7930, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984). {¶ 17} “ ‘The factors a court should consider in applying this reasonable person test include whether the encounter takes place in surroundings that are familiar to the suspect; the number of law enforcement officers present, as well as their conduct and demeanor; the degree of physical restraint imposed; and the duration and character of the interrogation.’ ” State v

2014Id. at 440 . {¶26} Ohio courts have similarly held that “routine roadside questioning of a driver during an ordinary traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.” E.g., State v. Brown, 2d Dist.

2019Montgomery No. 25854, 2014-Ohio-3846, ¶ 33-34 , citing Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 10 , 109 S.Ct. 205 , 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (“[R]outine roadside questioning of a driver during an ordinary traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.”).

2019Montgomery No. 25854, 2014-Ohio-3846, ¶ 33-34 , citing Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 10 , 109 S.Ct. 205 , 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (“[R]outine roadside questioning of a driver during an ordinary traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.”).

2025Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301-302 (1980). {¶25} Determining whether questioning is “a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings demands a fact-specific inquiry that asks whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood himself or herself to be in custody while being questioned”.

2025See State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 , 153- 154 (1998) (trial court did not err in finding defendant was not in custody when questioned and, therefore, officers were not required to provide him with Miranda warnings); Cleveland v. Oles, 2017-Ohio-5834, ¶ 29 (considering the totality of the circumstances, the questioning by law enforcement did not rise to the level of a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings). -16 Case No. 1-24-62 {¶31} Horton’s second assignment of error is overruled.

2025This type of inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017- Ohio-7930, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 (1984). {¶ 17} “ ‘The factors a court should consider in applying this reasonable person test include whether the encounter takes place in surroundings that are familiar to the suspect; the number of law enforcement officers present, as well as their conduct and demeanor; the degree of physical restraint imposed; and the duration and character of the interrogation.’ ” State v

2023Such an inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930 , 98 N.E.3d 987, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). “[N]either the subjective intent of the officer, nor the subjective belief of the defendant is relevant.” State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 , 2010-Ohio-499 , 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Estepp, 2d Dist.

2023Such an inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930 , 98 N.E.3d 987, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). “[N]either the subjective intent of the officer, nor the subjective belief of the defendant is relevant.” State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 , 2010-Ohio-499 , 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Estepp, 2d Dist.

2023Such an inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930 , 98 N.E.3d 987, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). “[N]either the subjective intent of the officer, nor the subjective belief of the defendant is relevant.” State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 , 2010-Ohio-499 , 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Estepp, 2d Dist.

2023Such an inquiry “focuses upon how a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation.” State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930 , 98 N.E.3d 987, ¶ 70 (2d Dist.), citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). “[N]either the subjective intent of the officer, nor the subjective belief of the defendant is relevant.” State v. Hatten, 186 Ohio App.3d 286 , 2010-Ohio-499 , 927 N.E.2d 632, ¶ 50 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Estepp, 2d Dist.

2019Montgomery No. 25854, 2014-Ohio-3846, ¶ 33-34 , citing Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 10 , 109 S.Ct. 205 , 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (“[R]outine roadside questioning of a driver during an ordinary traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.”).

2016We recently reviewed the applicable law as follows: “The right to [Miranda] warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986).

2016We recently reviewed the applicable law as follows: “The right to [Miranda] warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination.” State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 , 2007-Ohio-4575 , 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986).