PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-4101
ERIC JAMISON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00304-AMD)
Argued: September 28, 2007
Decided: December 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges,
and T. S. ELLIS, III, Senior United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Duncan wrote
the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer and Senior Judge Ellis con-
curred.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Lori Ann Leonovicz, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellant. Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appel-
2 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
lee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Balti-
more, Maryland, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Bal-
timore, Maryland, Joseph Balter, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
OPINION
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents the question of whether a defendant subjected
to police questioning in a hospital emergency room after he sought
treatment for a gunshot wound was "in custody," triggering the pro-
tections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 441 (1966). The defen-
dant, Eric Jamison ("Jamison"), solicited police assistance upon
arriving at the hospital, telling an officer stationed at the entrance,
"I’ve been shot[!]" J.A. 70. Jamison’s exclamation invited a later
police interview in his hospital bed, during which Jamison ultimately
revealed that he had in fact shot himself. Jamison’s admission formed
the basis of, inter alia, a charge for possession of a firearm by a felon,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Finding that the police had subjected Jamison to a "police-
dominated environment . . . from the moment he entered the treatment
room," J.A. 334-35, the district court held that Jamison was in cus-
tody during the police questioning. The district court therefore sup-
pressed Jamison’s admission that he had shot himself and his other
descriptions of the shooting, citing Miranda. On appeal, we find that
Jamison’s freedom to terminate the interview was curtailed primarily
by circumstances resulting from his injury and hospital admittance
rather than by police restraint. We therefore hold that Jamison was not
in custody at the time of his questioning and that Miranda warnings
were not required. We reverse the district court’s order suppressing
Jamison’s statements and remand for further proceedings.
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 3
I.
The essential facts are undisputed. At some point after midnight on
January 17, 2006, Jamison accidentally shot himself near the groin.
Michael McClenon ("McClenon") and Charles Moore ("Moore")
drove him to the emergency room at the University of Maryland Hos-
pital where three on-duty police officers, congregated at the hospital
entrance, saw them arrive. McClenon and Moore exited the vehicle
and told the officers that a gunshot victim was in the back seat. When
the officers opened the back door to the car, Jamison called out,
"C.O., C.O., I’ve been shot, man, I’ve been shot."1 J.A. 70 (internal
punctuation altered).
Officer Maurice Avance ("Officer Avance"), one of the officers
approached by McClenon and Moore, had been posted that evening
at the "security registration desk" near the hospital entrance. He solic-
ited Jamison’s name and the geographic location of the shooting as
hospital staff escorted Jamison to a treatment room. Officer Avance
called the police dispatch coordinator, reported the shooting, and
requested a detective be sent to the hospital to investigate. Officer
Avance then followed Jamison to his room, where he was lying prone
on a gurney while attending nurses cut off his clothing.
Hospital staff identified an entrance wound near Jamison’s groin
and an exit wound on his outer thigh. They began tending to the
wounds and inserted an I.V. line into Jamison’s arm. As Jamison’s
treatment continued, Officer Avance asked him to recount what had
happened. Jamison initially stated that he was attempting to buy drugs
on a certain street corner when an unknown person shot him. He said
he then flagged down a car with two men in it and they drove him
to the emergency room.
Shortly after Jamison was placed in the treatment room, Officer
Avance requested that brown bags be placed over Jamison’s hands.
The record is unclear as to whether hospital staff or Officer Avance
actually affixed the bags. Officer Avance later testified that officers
investigating a shooting routinely order that a gunshot-residue test be
1
Officer Avance testified that "C.O." is an abbreviation for "Correc-
tions Officer" commonly used among prison populations. J.A. 70.
4 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
performed on the hands of the wounded, regardless of whether he is
thought to be a victim or a suspect in the shooting. To ensure the
integrity of the test, plastic or paper bags are customarily placed over
the hands of the person to be tested, reducing the possibility of con-
tamination.
Officer Avance left Jamison’s treatment room after Jamison’s
hands were bagged, contacting the dispatch coordinator again and
requesting a gunshot-residue test for Jamison. He then returned to
Jamison’s room. Detective Sergeant Clifton Macer ("Detective
Macer"), a nonfatal-shootings investigator weighing 280 pounds and
standing six feet, four inches tall, responded to the dispatch coordina-
tor’s call and arrived in Jamison’s room. Officer Avance met Detec-
tive Macer in the hallway and briefed him on what had occurred. The
officers returned to Jamison’s room, where Detective Macer asked
Jamison to describe how he came to be shot. This time, Jamison said
he was using drugs (rather than buying them, as he had claimed ear-
lier) on a different street corner when someone attempted to rob and
then shot him. Recognizing these discrepancies, Detective Macer
asked Jamison once again to describe the shooting, and Jamison con-
firmed his second account.
Without securing Jamison’s consent, Detective Macer examined
Jamison’s injury, partially exposing his genitalia. He found charring
and stippling2 at the entry wound consistent with a shot fired at close
range. He further observed a downward trajectory from the entry
wound to the exit wound. Finding these facts to be in tension with
Jamison’s account of the shooting, Detective Macer then examined
Jamison’s clothing and found no bullet holes. Detective Macer again
asked Jamison to explain the shooting; Jamison repeated that he was
shot while using drugs. When Detective Macer explained that his
observations seemed inconsistent with Jamison’s story, Jamison
admitted that he shot himself with a handgun and threw the gun away.
Detective Macer asked Jamison to reveal the location of the gun so
that it could be secured, but Jamison refused, explaining that he was
2
"Stippling" describes the presence of burned and unburned gun pow-
der that sticks to the target when a gun is fired at close range. See Goins
v. Angelone, 226 F.3d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 2000).
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 5
on probation. Detective Macer’s entire conversation with Jamison
lasted approximately twenty minutes.
A crime-lab technician arrived while Detective Macer was inter-
viewing Jamison. At Detective Macer’s direction, the technician took
a photograph of Jamison lying on the gurney, close-ups of the entry
and exit wounds, and a photograph of each removed item of Jami-
son’s clothing. It is unclear on the record whether the photographs
were taken before or after Jamison admitted that he shot himself.
After interviewing Jamison, Detective Macer left the room to find
McClenon and Moore, who were waiting elsewhere in the hospital.
Meanwhile, the crime-lab technician remained in Jamison’s room and
collected samples from his hands for the gunshot-residue test. She
also collected Jamison’s clothes, preserving them as evidence. She
then left the hospital, having been in Jamison’s room for about forty
minutes.
When Detective Macer located McClenon and Moore and began
interviewing them, the two denied knowing Jamison. Coincidentally,
a University of Maryland police officer approached the trio at that
moment, informing Detective Macer that a handgun had been found
in the hospital’s vending-machine area. Hearing this, McClenon and
Moore admitted to driving Jamison to the hospital and then disposing
of the gun in the vending-machine area.3
A few hours after conducting the interviews of Jamison, McClenon
and Moore, Detective Macer returned to the station house, researched
Jamison’s record, and learned that he was a convicted felon. Detective
Macer swore out a warrant for Jamison’s arrest. A federal grand jury
indicted Jamison seven months later for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
3
The parties dispute whether, after retrieving the gun, Detective Macer
returned to question Jamison further. Jamison contends that Detective
Macer confronted him with the gun to confirm whether it was the same
weapon that inflicted Jamison’s wounds. These events occurred, if at all,
well after Jamison made the series of statements, variously describing the
shooting, that form the basis of this appeal. Thus, our disposition does
not depend on resolution of the parties’ dispute as to Detective Macer’s
later actions.
6 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
Before his trial, Jamison filed a motion to suppress "any and all
statements, admissions and confessions" he made during the inter-
views that evening with Officer Avance and Detective Macer. At the
subsequent suppression hearing, the district court, relying on United
States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1985), compared the limita-
tions on Jamison’s freedom to those suffered by the typical emer-
gency room patient, concluding that such a patient would not be
"subjected to what Mr. Jamison clearly indisputably was subjected to
in this case," J.A. 331. In particular, the court reasoned that the
imposing stature of the primary investigator, Detective Macer, and
supposed inconsistencies in his testimony as to whether he returned
to Jamison’s room after recovering the gun, gave rise to an inference
by "[c]ommon sense" that Detective Macer’s questioning had been
"aggressive." J.A. 332. Furthermore, the court found that the two offi-
cers treated Jamison’s body and clothing as "a crime scene," inspect-
ing both for evidence relating to the shooting, and further restraining
Jamison’s freedom of movement by handling his body for photo-
graphs and bagging his hands for a gunshot-residue test. J.A. 335. In
short, the court reasoned that the officers subjected Jamison "to a
police-dominated environment . . . from the moment he entered the
treatment room." J.A. 334-35. In light of these restrictions on Jami-
son’s freedom, the court concluded that Jamison was in custody dur-
ing the interview, requiring the suppression of Jamison’s accounts of
the shooting.4 The government now appeals the suppression order
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
II.
In considering an appeal of a suppression order, "[w]e review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal determina-
tions de novo." United States v. Jarrett, 338 F.3d 339, 343-44 (4th
Cir. 2003). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the pre-
vailing party below. United States v. Ellyson, 326 F.3d 522, 527 (4th
Cir. 2003).
4
Jamison also filed a motion to suppress the tangible evidence that
might be used against him at trial, including his clothing and the gun.
The district court denied the motion, and Jamison does not appeal the
denial.
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 7
A.
The Fifth Amendment commands that "[n]o person . . . shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S.
Const. amend. V. This privilege against self-incrimination is not lim-
ited to statements made during criminal court proceedings; rather, it
attaches whenever a person is in custody and subject to interrogation.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966). Custodial interroga-
tion "mean[s] 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."5 Id. at 444. Thus, during
the course of a criminal trial, "the prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interro-
gation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
incrimination." Id.
The question of custody typically turns on whether "a reasonable
person [would] have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the
interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112
(1995). In some circumstances, however, the defendant may be pre-
vented from pretermitting the interrogation because of factors inde-
pendent of police restraint. For example, in Florida v. Bostick, the
defendant’s "freedom of movement was restricted by a factor inde-
pendent of police conduct—i.e., by his being a passenger on a bus"—
which rendered the standard "free to leave" analysis inapplicable. 501
U.S. 429, 436 (1991) (emphasis omitted). In such circumstances, "the
appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to
decline officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." Id. at
436.
This court came to a similar conclusion in United States v. Conley,
779 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1985), a case decided before Bostick. In Con-
ley, the defendant, an inmate, was injured in a stabbing incident. Id.
at 971. He was interrogated both before and after receiving medical
5
The district court found that, as a rule, "interrogation is questioning."
J.A. 66. To the contrary, interrogation is more aptly defined as "question-
ing initiated by law enforcement officers." United States v. Kimbrough,
477 F.3d 144, 147 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted).
8 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
treatment at the prison’s infirmary, but never received Miranda warn-
ings. The defendant made statements intended to exculpate him in a
murder investigation arising from the stabbing incident. When the
statements were later used against him at trial, he attempted to have
the statements suppressed, unsuccessfully arguing they were made
while he was in custody. Id. This court recognized that "restraint" can
be a relative concept. When, "by definition, the entire population [of
inmates] is under restraint of free movement," a person cannot be
deemed to be in custody unless a reasonable person would perceive
that the police have imposed additional restraints on his freedom of
action. Id. at 973; see also Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424, 428
(9th Cir. 1978) (recognizing that restriction in a defendant-inmate sce-
nario is a relative concept which "necessarily implies a change in the
surroundings of the prisoner which results in an added imposition on
his freedom of movement").
Applying this insight, the Conley court examined the totality of the
circumstances in which the defendant’s questioning occurred, seeking
to identify whether the restraints on the defendant were incident to his
interrogation or were merely background limitations imposed on all
prisoners in his situation. 779 F.2d at 973. The primary purpose for
which the defendant was taken to the conference room was not to
interrogate him but to separate him from other inmates and allow him
to be safely transported to the infirmary. Indeed, the discussions were
brief and were interrupted by Conley’s trip to the infirmary. Id. at 973
n.4. Though Conley wore handcuffs, such was standard procedure for
transferring inmates within the prison. Id. at 973-74. Finally, the offi-
cers called Conley by name and treated him as a witness, not as a sus-
pect. Id. at 974. In light of these circumstances, the court held that
Conley’s freedom was no more restricted than that of other prisoners
undergoing transfer within the facility, and Miranda warnings were
not required. Id.
Against this legal backdrop, we now consider the peculiar circum-
stances surrounding Jamison’s questioning.
B.
Analysis of whether Jamison was in custody when he made the
statements describing the shooting depends on "whether a reasonable
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 9
person would [have] fe[lt] free to decline the officers’ requests or oth-
erwise terminate the encounter," Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436. In dissect-
ing the perceptions of such a reasonable person, however, we must be
careful to separate the restrictions on his freedom arising from police
interrogation and those incident to his background circumstances.
That is, to the extent Jamison felt constrained by his injuries, the med-
ical exigencies they created (e.g., the donning of a hospital gown and
the insertion of an I.V. line), or the routine police investigation they
initiated, such limitations on his freedom should not factor into our
reasonable-person analysis. It is this careful differentiation between
police-imposed restraint and circumstantial restraint that leads us to
conclude that Jamison was not in custody when he described the
shooting during his hospital interview. The district court properly
invoked the same lodestar, but proceeded to classify the significant
limitations on Jamison’s freedom as police-imposed when they were
actually routine treatment for a person in Jamison’s position.
1.
Jamison relies heavily on the affixing of paper bags to his hands
as evidence that he was in custody. Jamison argues that "[t]he bags
effectively paralyzed his hands" and were thus "[e]ven worse than
handcuffs." Appellee’s Br. at 22. Jamison questions whether paper
bags were indeed applied to shooting victims’ hands as a matter of
standard practice, citing Detective Macer’s testimony at the suppres-
sion hearing that the investigating officer has discretion as to whether
to order a gunshot-residue test. Jamison also argues that, since the
record does not reveal whether the officers explained the purpose of
the bags to him, a reasonable person would have inferred that the bags
rendered him effectively under arrest and not free to terminate the
encounter with the police.
Jamison’s characterization of the use of the bags as discretionary
is inaccurate. First, Detective Macer’s testimony at the suppression
hearing explained that bags are generally affixed to the hands of all
shooting victims—suspects or not—soon after police arrive at the
crime scene or the hospital. The portion of Detective Macer’s testi-
mony cited by Jamison pertains instead to the actions of the police
after the bags are affixed. Detective Macer clarified that, depending
on further developments in the investigation, a victim’s hands are
10 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
either tested for gunshot residue, or, "[i]f it’s determined that it’s not
needed, then the bags are removed and the test is not conducted." J.A.
265. That is, the victim’s hands are initially bagged as a matter of
course, but the decision to follow through with the gunshot-residue
test is "a judgment call . . . [b]ased on [the] investigation." Id.6
This distinction is critical here, because the samples for Jamison’s
gunshot-residue test were not taken until after he provided his con-
flicting accounts of the shooting and after he admitted to shooting
himself—the very statements sought to be suppressed. Whether Jami-
son was in custody while the technician took samples from his hands
(after he provided the statements regarding the shooting) is logically
inapposite to the question on appeal.7 We find nothing in the record,
then, to suggest that bags were not placed on the hands of all shooting
victims, including Jamison, as a matter of standard practice.
6
The district court made a factual finding that one of the two officers,
not hospital staff, had affixed the bags to Jamison’s hands. The finding
was based solely on the court’s determination that Detective Macer’s tes-
timony regarding his actions after locating the gun was impeached on
cross-examination. Because there is nothing in the record to support the
finding that the officers physically affixed the bags, we hold such finding
to be clearly erroneous and do not accord it any weight on appeal. See
Jarrett, 338 F.3d at 344.
7
For this reason, we find no merit in Jamison’s analogies to United
States v. Turner, 761 A.2d 845 (D.C. 2000), and State v. Louis, 727 P.2d
483 (Kan. 1986). In Turner, the police collected hair, saliva, and blood
samples first, then proceeded to question the defendant. The court found
that the taking of the samples had placed the defendant in custody, where
he remained during his subsequent questioning. See 761 A.2d at 852
(suppressing the defendant’s statements because he had not received
Miranda warnings); see also Louis, 727 P.2d at 489 (holding that the tak-
ing of blood samples from a defendant in the hospital after a vehicular
homicide, during which time officers were instructed to stand guard and
not allow the defendant to leave, rendered the defendant in custody). Of
course, whether Jamison was in custody at the times the test was con-
ducted and the clothes were confiscated might have been relevant to
Jamison’s motion to suppress the tangible evidence. Because Jamison did
not appeal the denial of the motion to suppress the tangible evidence, we
decline to discuss it further.
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 11
Jamison’s insistence that a reasonable person would believe the
bags rendered him effectively under arrest is likewise unavailing. Of
course, a reasonable person without a detailed knowledge of police
procedures might find it odd that his hands were bagged as soon as
he arrived at the hospital for treatment for a gunshot wound. The like-
lihood of such curiosity does not, however, lead to an inference that
a reasonable person would consequently feel unable to refuse police
questioning. To the contrary, a reasonable person would feel free to
inquire as to why the bags were employed and whether he could
refuse them or further questioning. We therefore conclude that the
affixing of the bags to Jamison’s hands does not alone render his
questioning custodial.
2.
The affixing of bags to his hands forms only part of Jamison’s
broader contention that the police treated him as a suspect, and not as
a victim, from the moment he entered the hospital. In particular, Jami-
son objects to the officers’ treatment of his body and clothing as a
crime scene. The district court found merit in Jamison’s argument,
finding that "[t]here is no such thing as a crime scene exception to the
[C]onstitution." J.A. 336.
Jamison, and the court below, however, misunderstand the reach of
Miranda.
General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a
crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-
finding process is not affected by our holding. It is an act of
responsible citizenship for individuals to give whatever
information they may have to aid in law enforcement. In
such situations the compelling atmosphere inherent in the
process of in-custody interrogation is not necessarily pres-
ent.
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78. Granted, "[a]ny interview of one sus-
pected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it,
simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law
enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be
charged with a crime." Oregon v. Matthiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495
12 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
(1977). But Miranda and its progeny do not equate police investiga-
tion of criminal acts with police coercion. This distinction is espe-
cially salient when the victim or suspect initiates the encounter with
the police. Cf. Kimbrough, 477 F.3d at 146-47 (holding that question-
ing by the defendant’s mother was not initiated by law enforcement
officers and therefore the defendant was not in custody during the
questioning).
Many of the indignities suffered by Jamison at the hands of the
police during his hospital stay were the direct result of his seeking
medical treatment and initiating a police investigation. Before any
officer had an opportunity to question Jamison, he called out for their
assistance, "C.O., C.O., I’ve been shot, man, I’ve been shot." J.A. 70
(internal punctuation altered). Having invoked the protective and
investigatory powers of the police, a reasonable person in Jamison’s
position would not then be surprised when asked to recount a descrip-
tion of the shooting. Given the violent nature of the crime and the fact
that Jamison’s very injuries and explanations constituted key evi-
dence, a reasonable person would expect to be interviewed even while
receiving urgent medical care. Indeed, a reasonable person might
complain of police malfeasance had they not immediately investi-
gated the shooting. In the context of this investigation, even the most
significant limitation on Jamison’s freedom, the bagging of his hands,
seems less intrusive. A reasonable person would not feel deprived of
his freedom by the neutral application of such a blanket policy to vic-
tims and suspects.
As Jamison’s questioning progressed and his accounts began to
reveal inconsistencies, a reasonable person would expect diligent
investigators to ask for clarification. Furthermore, a reasonable person
would not be surprised to have the police investigate and even photo-
graph the gunshot wound,8 perhaps to identify the caliber of weapon
the assailant used on the victim and the trajectory of the bullet. Of
course, investigation of the wound involved officers coming into
physical contact with Jamison, even partially exposing Jamison’s gen-
8
As mentioned supra, we cannot determine on the record whether the
photographs were taken before or after Jamison’s admission that he shot
himself. In any event, we find the photographs to have been taken as a
neutral investigatory tool.
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 13
italia. This affront to Jamison’s privacy was, however, the direct
result of Jamison having shot himself near the groin. Finally, after
providing shifting explanations of where in the city the shooting
occurred, a reasonable person would expect the police to question him
further, lest they expend energy investigating false leads.
Viewed in this light, the actions of Detective Macer reflect the pru-
dent course of conduct a reasonable person might expect after initiat-
ing a police investigation into his shooting. A reasonable person
would tolerate nothing less than a thorough investigation into such a
shooting. The district court’s contrary characterization of Detective
Macer’s questioning as "aggressive" therefore cannot withstand scru-
tiny.9
We find Mosely v. State, 495 S.E.2d 9 (Ga. 1998), cited by the gov-
ernment, illustrative. In Mosely, the defendant drove his unconscious
wife to the hospital. His wife had been shot at close range with a shot-
gun and the defendant had a shotgun wound to his leg. Investigators
arrived at the hospital and spoke with the defendant regarding the
shootings, who recounted a story of armed robbery. Though investi-
gators did not immediately consider the defendant a suspect, they sub-
jected him to a gunshot-residue test as a matter of routine procedure.
The test results and the defendant’s shifting explanations to investiga-
tors suggested that the defendant had shot his wife and himself. At his
subsequent murder trial, the defendant moved to suppress the state-
ments he made to investigators. The court held that the defendant was
"merely being questioned as a victim" and was therefore not in police
custody while he was being treated in the emergency room. Id. at 12.
Just as police investigation concurrent with emergency medical treat-
ment was found non-custodial when the defendant in Mosely was
treated as a mere victim, so too do we find Jamison’s questioning to
be precisely what would be expected were Jamison merely a victim.
9
The district court noted that Detective Macer’s imposing stature fac-
tored into its finding of custody. Because we conclude that Detective
Macer’s investigation would otherwise be found prudent by a reasonable
person, we find that his stature alone does not render his questioning of
Jamison custodial.
14 UNITED STATES v. JAMISON
Jamison was primarily restrained not by the might of the police, but
by his self-inflicted gunshot wound, the medical exigencies it created,
and the investigation he initiated. We therefore conclude that a rea-
sonable person in Jamison’s circumstances would not have found
himself restrained by the police. Instead, he would have "fe[lt] free
to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."
Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436-37. We therefore hold that Jamison was not
in custody at the time he offered the statements describing the shoot-
ing, including his admission that he shot himself.
3.
Comparison to similar cases bolsters our conclusion. For example,
we find the circumstances surrounding Jamison’s questioning to par-
allel those circumstances found to be non-custodial in Conley, this
court’s seminal case exploring the distinction between background
restraint and police restraint. For example, Jamison’s conversation
with the police was incident to his seeking medical treatment for his
gunshot wounds, just as the inmate in Conley spoke to officials only
in connection with being transported to the prison infirmary to receive
treatment for stab wounds. See 779 F.2d at 971. Furthermore, brown
bags are used with victims, witnesses, and suspects alike, paralleling
the blanket use of handcuffs in a prison setting that was found to be
a background circumstance in Conley. Id. at 973-74. Finally, only
forty minutes elapsed, at most, from the time Jamison’s friends
dropped him off at the emergency department to the time when Jami-
son confessed to shooting himself, just as the Conley inmate had only
brief discussions with investigators.10 Id. at 974 n.4.
10
The government notes that the other courts that have considered
police interviews in a hospital setting have reached a similar result. See
United States v. Robertson, 19 F.3d 1318, 1320-21 (10th Cir. 1994)
(finding defendant was not in custody even though he was interviewed
by law enforcement while he was hospitalized with a head injury);
United States v. Martin, 781 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that
a defendant, groggy from the effects of Demerol, who spoke with detec-
tives in his hospital room was not in custody and therefore not entitled
to Miranda warnings); State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 516 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1993) (finding that a shooting suspect was not in custody during
police questioning at his home in part because the officers’ paraffin test
of the defendant’s hands, designed to detect gunshot residue, was part of
routine police investigation into the shooting). We find the reasoning in
these cases serves only to confirm our own.
UNITED STATES v. JAMISON 15
At bottom, Jamison was certainly inconvenienced by the circum-
stances of his hospitalization. Trading one’s street clothes for a gown,
sacrificing one’s privacy as countless nurses, nursing assistants, and
physicians perform examinations, and suffering the insertion of an
I.V. line into one’s arm are all intrusions borne by those in need of
urgent medical care. These circumstances served to compound the
primary restriction on Jamison’s freedom to leave: twin wounds from
a bullet entering near his groin and exiting his outer thigh. The fact
of Jamison’s injury, the trappings of his treatment, and the routine
aspects of the investigation he initiated provided the most substantial
restrictions of Jamison’s freedom of movement, far outstripping what-
ever additional impingement on his freedom to leave was presented
by the officers during the ongoing police investigation into his shoot-
ing.
III.
Absent police-imposed restraint, there is no custody. It was Jami-
son, not the police, who initiated the questioning at issue here when
he told police at the hospital that he was the shooting victim of an
unknown assailant. The police posed questions to Jamison and
restricted his freedom of action, but only to the degree necessary to
investigate the crime. Their activities did not transform Jamison’s
hospital interview into a custodial interrogation. As Jamison’s state-
ments were not made under custodial interrogation, Miranda warn-
ings were not required, and the statements should not have been
suppressed. We therefore reverse the suppression order of the district
court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED