Law Students

People v. Popeye

Is the statement by Popeye to Officer Pea acknowleging that "I yam what I yam", inadmissable as a violation of Miranda?

Miranda is a judicially created rule of law that requires police officers to inform suspects of specific legal rights and consequences prior to a custodial interrogation. The person must be informed that:

• He has the right to remain silent.
  
• Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.
  
• He has the right to an attorney before and during questioning.
  
• If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to him at no cost.
  

The person must then be asked if he understands those rights and chooses to waive them before the questioning may begin.

The initial inquiry, then, is whether Popeye was in custody. Courts have established the test for determining custodial status for purposes of Miranda as whether a reasonable person would believe he was free to leave. In the case at hand, Popeye was asked by Officer Pea "if he would mind staying put" while the officer investigated. Furthermore, there are facts to indicate coercion or force due to the lack of answer to Popeye's question "do I have any choice?" The question does not imply a right to decline since Popeye was asked and not answered. Popeye's question seems to be one of polite cooperation in response to a questionable request as well as the failure of Officer Pea to respond. As such, it is likely that the court would find Popeye to have been in custody when this statement was made.

Assuming a court did determine Popeye to be in custody, the question becomes whether the statement was made in response to an interrogation. Again, courts have developed a litmus test for what constitutes an interrogation for purposes of Miranda. That is, an interrogation is any conduct or statement made by law enforcement that is designed to elicit an incriminating statement. Officer Pea's statement seems to indicate a request of elicitation for an incriminating statement by the phrase, "Not since college, eh Mr. Popeye. There must have been a lot of broken windows at the Maritime Academy when you were attending." His comment was designed to elicit a negative response. The defense would be hard pressed to show that such a statement, by an officer, would lead to Popeye's lack of negative response. Furthermore, the statement was designed in such a manner that an incriminating response would be made.

Since the statement by Officer Pea was made while Popeye was not free from custody and amounted to an interrogation for purposes of Miranda, it should be rule inadmissible at trial.