I am working an appellate brief were the issue involves two statements given consecutively, first is exculpatory, the second is inculpatory.

Defendant was not arrested at the scene.

Defendant was transported to HQ along with her young son in the back of a patrol car.

At no time was defendant handcuffed. (Even when she was eventually arrested, she was not handcuffed but simply escorted to the booking area.)

Taking both statements took from 4 to 6 hours.

Defendant was never told she was under arrest, but at the same time nothing in the record shows she was specifically told she could leave.

All rights were given and initialed as understood and waived.

Trial court found that pc existed for detention and confessions were not the result of illegal arrest.

Defense is raising Fourth Amendment illegal arrest and 38.23.

My (State's)position is that trial court was correct, no violation, free, knowing and voluntary confession.

Any ideas, comments or suggestions will be highly valued.

Gordon LeMaire

Is "pc for detention" different from pc for arrest? Assuming there was only reasonable suspicion, the issue resolves itself to whether you can convince the appellate court to "find that defendant's freedom of movement was not restrained and that a reasonable [innocent]person, in defendant's situation, would have felt that he had the liberty to terminate the interview." Williams, 82 S.W.3d at 562. It helps that the police communicated to the suspect she was not under arrest. Would have been better if they had said "you are free to leave whenever you choose". Six hours or even four hours seems to cut both ways-- lots of people might not stay that long unless they felt they had to. What the words and conduct of the officers prior to developing pc "manifested" to the defendant is a case-specific inquiry.

If there was actually pc to believe the suspect committed the offense, then you can skip the issue of detention vs. arrest. Rodriguez, 53 S.W.3d at 428.

Thanks, Rodriguez clears the bases. And the (YOUR TEAM HERE) win!