What is the difference between being “in custody” and “detention” and why is it important?

1. In Custody:

  - Being "in custody" generally means that a person is formally under arrest, deprived of their freedom, and not free to leave. Indiana courts have described custody as a "formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." It often involves being physically detained in a police vehicle, jail, or other secure location. At least in Indiana, being placed in handcuffs is almost always considered being “in custody”. When placing a person in handcuffs to transport them to jail, some police officers will say, “you’re not under arrest, you’re just being placed in handcuffs for my safety,” but legally you are “in custody” in that scenario, regardless of how a police officer describes the situation.

   - When a person is in custody, law enforcement must read them their Miranda Rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. This is to inform the individual of their right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to stop answering questions.

2. Detained:

  - Being "detained" means that a person is temporarily stopped or held by law enforcement for investigative purposes, but they are not necessarily under arrest or in custody.

  - During a detention, the person is not free to leave the scene, but the level of intrusion on their freedom is less severe than being "in custody". Law enforcement may detain individuals to conduct brief questioning and check identification, but they must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity.

The key difference between the two is the degree of freedom of movement. In custody implies a significant loss of freedom, often involving arrest and formal detention, while being detained is a temporary and limited restriction of one's freedom for investigative purposes.

When do police have to “read me my rights?”

The distinction between being “in custody” or being “detained” is important because it impacts whether a police officer has to “read you your rights” before asking questions.

Miranda Rights, often referred to as the "Miranda warning" or "Miranda advisement," are a set of rights that must be read to individuals in police custody or under custodial interrogation in the United States. These rights are based on the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and are designed to inform individuals of their constitutional rights and protect their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Miranda warning typically includes the following rights:

1. The Right to Remain Silent: The individual has the right to remain silent and not answer any questions. Anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.

2. The Right to an Attorney: The individual has the right to an attorney. If they cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to them at no cost (commonly known as a public defender).

3. The Right to Stop Questioning: The individual can stop answering questions at any time during the interrogation and request an attorney. If they invoke this right, the police must stop questioning them until an attorney is present.

4. The “Right to Understanding”: Implicitly, the individual must understand these rights. The police must ensure that the individual comprehends their Miranda Rights and voluntarily waives or invokes them.

The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect individuals from self-incriminating statements and to ensure that they are aware of their rights when in police custody or subject to custodial interrogation. If law enforcement fails to read a person their Miranda Rights, any statements or confessions made by that person during questioning may be inadmissible in court.

It's important to note that Miranda Rights are not required in all situations. They are specifically applicable when an individual is in custody and subject to interrogation by law enforcement. Routine questions, traffic stops, and general conversations with the police may not trigger the need for Miranda warnings – this is why, for example, police are not required to “read you your rights” every time they pull you over for a traffic violation; the person is unquestionably not free to leave, and is therefore considered “detained”. But typically a routine traffic stop, at least at the outset, does not involve a “restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest,” and a Miranda warning is not required. But what begins as a “routine” traffic stop may, depending on the facts and circumstances, develop into a custodial situation. However, the line between “detention” and “custody” can be legally complex and may vary based on specific circumstances and legal standards in different jurisdictions. This complexity leads to a lot of confusion, even with judges at the appellate level.

I was in custody and was not advised of my rights, what happens?

If an individual is in custody and is not advised of their Miranda Rights, it’s not a “technicality” that means the case is automatically dismissed, but a violation of Miranda could result in a person’s admissions being excluded from evidence. For example, if a person is in handcuffs being transported to the jail on suspicion of operating their car while intoxicated and the officer asks the person how much they had to drink without having first advised them of their Miranda Rights, the person’s answer would typically be inadmissible in a trial against them (with some exceptions). Conversely, if a police officer asks no questions but a drunk person starts telling the police about how much they had to drink and how drunk they feel while on their way to the jail, those statements will generally be admissible against them because the police are not engaging in interrogation. Also, any statements they made prior to being in custody would still be admissible, as would the officer’s observations and the results of any field sobriety tests, or any certified chemical test results, which are not testimonial in nature, and thus not covered by Miranda.

This article is intended to offer only a general summary of the distinction between “custody” and “detention” and its ramifications in a criminal case. It’s important to note that it is impossible to fully cover one of the most critical and complicated legal concepts in the abstract, in a few thousand words. There are literally an infinite number of possible factual scenarios and exceptions to the “general” rules governing custody and its impact on the admissibility of evidence and this article is not intended as a substitute for the advice of a skilled criminal defense attorney analyzing the facts of a specific case.