M.D. Fla. Notes Split Re Whether Coercive Terry Stops Constitute Miranda Custody

Per U.S. v. Artiles-Martin, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2600787 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008):

There is currently a split in the circuits over whether coercive Terry stops constitute Miranda custody .^FN38 While the Eleventh Circuit has not expressly adopted either view, the Circuit addressed this issue in United States v. Acosta.^FN39

FN38. The First, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits hold that so-called Terry reasonableness means Miranda warnings are not required, even if the stop was coercive. See, United States v. Pelayo-Ruelas, 345 F.3d 589, 592 (8th Cir.2003) (finding that a suspect is not in custody when an investigative stop is reasonable); United States v. Trueber, 238 F.3d 79, 92 (1st Cir.2001) (same); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1110 (4th Cir.1995) (same). The Second, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth circuits hold that a coercive Terry stop requires warnings but still is deemed a valid Terry stop. See, United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 673 (2d Cir.2004) (“This Court has specifically rejected Fourth Amendment reasonableness as the standard for resolving Miranda custody challenges.”); United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468, 1472-73 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that whether a stop was permissible under Terry is irrelevant to the Miranda question, because “Terry is an exception to the Fourth Amendment probable cause requirement, not to the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.”); United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1097 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455.

FN39. 363 F.3d 1141, 1148-1150 (11th Cir.2004)