Motion to suppress defendant’s statement to police while in the hospital; Whether defendant was in custody; People v Barritt; Voluntariness of the statement; People v Cipriano; Colorado v Connelly; Child Protective Services (CPS)

Holding that defendant was not in custody when he was interviewed in his hospital room and that the statement he gave police was voluntarily made, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He was in the hospital due to chest pains. A police detective (S) and a CPS worker interviewed him about a sexual abuse complaint from his stepdaughter, who identified him as the perpetrator. The interview was video recorded. He was charged with CSC counts. He argued that the trial court erred in concluding he was not in custody at the time of the interview and that his statement was voluntary. As to the custody issue, the court noted that the fact he “was interviewed in his hospital room weighs against finding that he was in custody, because a hospital room does not present the same coercive atmosphere as a police station or other environment where control by the police is evident.” In addition, the 40-minute interview was “not oppressive or otherwise indicative of a custodial atmosphere.” Although it was true his “freedom of movement was limited by the medical treatment he was receiving, particularly the intravenous fluids[,]” law enforcement did not formally restrain him. “And while the door to the hallway was closed, it was not locked.” The court noted that the fact someone entered the room during the interview showed “defendant was not restrained to the confines of the hospital room. Moreover, closing the door could be viewed as a considerate gesture given the nature of the subject matter discussed.” The fact S was armed did not change the court’s conclusion. She never touched her weapon during the interview, and it “was holstered on her right side and slightly behind her, obscured from defendant’s view[.]” As to voluntariness, he did not establish the necessary predicate that his statement was “the product of police coercion.” The court noted that police routinely question “suspects without warning, quite obviously when they have cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime. We have never held, and we reject the notion, that these facts constitute police coercion.” The court also noted that there was no indication he was “deprived of food, sleep, or medical attention[,]” or that he was in pain. The video did not indicate that he was in any “way compromised or confused.”