State v. Andrews - No. : 0207016305, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 231 (Super. Ct. June 30, 2003)

Rule:

Not all statements obtained by the police after a person has been taken into custody are to be considered the product of interrogation. "Interrogation," as conceptualized in the Miranda opinion, must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. That extra measure of compulsion can be found in questioning or its equivalent. 

Facts:

While visiting an aquarium in California, Joseph Andrews videotaped passers by, including children, which was a legal act. An off-duty police officer noticed Andrews’ actions. At the time, California was on edge because of a recent, notorious child-kidnapping case. The officer confronted Andrews and demanded that Andrews give the officer the camera and his driver's license. When other police arrived at the scene, Andrews told the police that he possessed contraband in Delaware. 

Issue:

Did the police interrogate Andrews, and therefore should have provided Andrews with Miranda warnings?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the initial police contact was justified, even though Andrews’ actions were legal. Andrews was videotaping strangers at a time and place where people were especially nervous about their children's safety. The court held that Andrews was reasonably justified in believing that he was in custody. However, the court held that the incriminating statements were not the product of interrogation. The court found that Andrews probably told the police about the contraband because he felt guilty about his interest in it. The court held that the police did not interrogate Andrews, and therefore the police did not have to provide Miranda warnings.