In a really, really bad opinion, the San Antonio Court of Appeals suppressed a murder confession, calling it custodial (with no Miranda), even though the defendant was permitted to leave the police station after confessing:

http://www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=15698

Using bizarre reasoning, the court decided that no reasonable person could have felt free to leave after confessing to murder. But, he did leave.

Please tell me someone is going to file a motion for rehearing and seek PDR on this one.

This is incredible! I've always had the impression that if the suspect was free to leave, and in fact was permitted to leave, the interrogation was non-custodial. We've advised our local officers accordingly. This opinion certainly calls that advice into question and I, too, hope someone files a request for rehearing or PDR.

Your advice to police officers is absolutely correct. Don't change it. Miranda was never intended to cover situations in which the defendant voluntarily talked to police officers and went home when finished. This case illustrates the total corruption of an understanding of proper police work.

Miranda was created to place a shield between the handcuffed criminal and a over zealous investigator. It was never meant to hinder appropriate voluntary questioning of a free suspect.

So now the police must look for pivotal admissions and assess what effect that may have on the suspect's feeling of freedom. This is so far removed from what happened to Miranda that surely some court will recognize that voluntariness is not the fragile thing Justice Duncan makes it out to be. The mental stress used to throw out the confession were likely the very things which motivated it-- but that stress was the product of the defendant's conduct, not anything done wrong by the police.

But what a nice Christmas present for XU!

The Xu case is summarized on the case of the day, today. Is there any indication that a PDR will be filed?

We took a similar confession during a murder investigation just last week, and I advised the officers it would hold up. The opinion of the court of appeals needs to be reversed.

Well at least some courts can get the custody issue right. See Brosette, No. 06-01-189-CR (02/03/03). Surely someone knows more about the status of Xu by now.

The Brossette case is available at Texarkana web site

I would note one more thing: DPS seems to be determined to create Miranda issues where none exist. DPS should not have a policy of reading Miranda warnings to defendants who are not in custody. This is the sort of extension of Miranda that gets law enforcement into trouble.

With PJ Keller noting her dissent, the CCA today refused the State's PDR in Xu. Lets hope the 4th District doesn't infect others. Guess we at least have to start talking about pivotal admission situations to those investigating offenses.

Do you think SB 1896 (providing for warrantless arrest after a defendant confesses to a felony), which is on its way to the governor, will make the other appellate courts more likely to follow the Xu court's decision? At the point where the defendant gives a confession to a felony, it seems that they will then have the ability to arrest immediately. The choice to do so or not would just be a matter of the officer's discretion. It seems like this would fit very well into the Xu court's reasoning.

Despite the ruling to the contrary, I still think the safest way to avoid a Xu ruling is to let the defendant leave the police station. Show the court that you meant what you said. Then you can make a warrantless (or warrant if there is time) arrest.

I also think that Xu's Chinese nationality played a big part in the outcome.