In what circumstances will the police interview appellant outside his home, and he is then arrested after the interview is over?

In this case, appellant was outnumbered three-to-one when the police interviewed him outside his home, the officers did not tell him he could terminate the questioning at any time, and he was arrested after the interview was over. Additionally, it is apparent from the context of the interview that the police suspected appellant of criminal wrongdoing from the get-go. However, "[e]ven a clear statement from an officer that the person under interrogation is a prime suspect is not, in itself, dispositive of the custody issue[.]" (Stansbury v. California, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 325.) Instead, we

Page 10

must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the person would have felt free to leave. (People v. Pilster, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403.)

In that regard, it is significant that when the officers initially approached appellant, they asked him if he would be willing to speak to them, and he voluntarily agreed to do so. They also informed appellant he was not in custody. The questioning itself was relatively brief, lasting only about 10 minutes, and it occurred in an open area on appellant's own property; he was not whisked away to a secluded area for extensive questioning. (Compare United States v. Craighead (9th Cir. 2008) 539 F.3d 1073, 1078 [defendant deemed in custody where the police interrogated him at length in the confines of a secluded storage area].) Moreover, the testimony believed by the trial court was that the questioning was cordial and the interview atmosphere was calm; at no point did Ayala or his fellow officers threaten, mislead or physically restrain appellant in any way. At one point, they did steer appellant's sister away from the interview area. But the police often separate suspects from other people when they are questioning them. This routine police practice did not transform appellant's interview into a custodial situation, nor did any of the other circumstances surrounding the interview. The officers were not required to advise appellant of his Miranda rights when they spoke to him outside his home.