When police interrogate people in custody, they generally must provide 米兰达 警告: You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court, and you have the right to an attorney. 米兰达 警告 are necessary to counter the inherently coercive pressures of being detained and interrogated by law enforcement officers. When people feel trapped, 创伤, and fearful of facing criminal penalties, they might be coerced into providing whatever information their interrogator is asking for.
These types of coercive interrogations are not always conducted by traditional police officers. When parents are arrested, the Department of Human Services (DHS) may conduct child welfare investigations to determine what should happen to their children. DHS investigative officers may interview parents about their family relationships, 家庭暴力, 药物滥用, 贫困, or disability—all of which may be relevant to the reason for the parent’s arrest. 在这种情况下, DHS investigative officers ask the same types of questions as police interrogators do, and DHS often collaborates and exchanges information with law enforcement. The information a parent provides to a DHS investigative officer can be used against them both to take away custody of their children and to incriminate them. 事实上, if a DHS investigative officer reasonably believes abuse or neglect has occurred, Colorado law requires them to notify local law enforcement—which means that providing information to DHS is, 在很多情况下, practically the same as providing information to law enforcement.
出于这些原因, our briefs argue that DHS investigative officers act as law enforcement officers when they interrogate parents in jail. They are therefore required to provide 米兰达 警告 in the same way police officers are.
在弗雷泽v. 人, the 法院 is considering not only whether DHS officers should be treated as law enforcement officers for purposes of requiring 米兰达 警告, but also whether a person is “in custody”—i.e., deserving of 米兰达 警告—if they are in pretrial detention and the interrogator asks about the facts underlying their custody. 通常, if a person has been arrested, or if their freedom of movement has been restricted as if they were arrested, they are “in custody” for 米兰达 purposes. 但 the 科罗拉多州最高法院 has previously determined that, if a person is incarcerated for one offense, and then interrogated about a 单独的 offense, they are not “in custody” unless they are under 额外的 restraints—beyond being in jail.
We believe the 科罗拉多州最高法院’s requirement of 额外的 restraints is inconsistent with language and purpose of the 米兰达 case itself. 但 Frazee is not about the viability of that requirement. 而不是, Frazee is about whether that requirement applies when a detained parent is interrogated about 同样的罪行 for which they were detained. Our brief argues that it does not, and further explains how the dire conditions of local jails in this state compel the conclusion that parents detained in such restrictive facilities and interrogated about the facts that led to their detention are in custody and deserve 米兰达 警告.
Our briefs also explain how the threat of child removal makes DHS interrogations 至少 as coercive as other types of law enforcement interrogations, because the threat of child removal is intensely frightening and traumatizing. And a government that has historically torn apart families of color, 贫困的家庭, and families with parents with disabilities—all of whom are disproportionately incarcerated and thus will be disproportionately impacted by the 法院’s rulings—must ensure that parents understand their constitutional rights when they are at risk of losing custody of their children.
We hope the 法院 will recognize that, when DHS investigative officers interrogate parents in jail about the events that led to their incarceration, they should provide 米兰达 警告.
