Blog

“Custodial Interrogation Environment” Does Not Trigger Need for Miranda Warning

Mar 21 2025
Posted By:

Miranda v. Arizona, probably the most recognized case in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, has been controversial since it was published in 1966. For more than fifty years, Miranda was perceived by most people, both inside and outside the nation’s criminal justice system, as a Fifth Amendment-based constitutional right against self-incrimination—known as the right to remain silent and request the assistance of counsel once in police custody. In fact, in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled in Dickerson v. United States that Congress does not have the authority to overrule the Miranda decision because it is a “constitutionally based right.”

In 2022, however, the Supreme Court in Vega v. Tekoh walked back Miranda’s “constitutionally based right by saying the decision extended only a “prophylactic rule rather than a “constitutional right”—at least in civil rights litigation—designed to prevent coercive police custodial interrogations.

The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that certain procedural safeguards had to be met to ensure the right against compelled self-incrimination was honored. One of these safeguards was to inform the suspect before custodial interrogation that he had a right to “the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.This right included the right not onlyto consult with counsel before questioning, but also to have counsel present during any questioning if the defendant so desires. And if, after being informed of this right, the suspect requests counsel, “the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” The Supreme Court has referred to the requirements of Miranda as a prophylactic rule,” though one that is based in the Constitution. In Edwards v. Arizona, the Supreme Court went a step further: when a suspect invokes his right to counsel under Miranda, the police must not only cease any current interrogation, but they may not seek to interrogate the suspect again—even after further Miranda warnings—unless the suspect has been given counsel or the suspect himself initiates further communication.    

In Minnick v. Mississippi, the Supreme Court held that once the Miranda-based right to counsel has been invoked, the Edwards prohibition against further police-initiated questioning remains, even after the suspect has consulted counsel, if counsel is not present during the interrogation.

In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court held that it would not add to these protections by allowing a suspect to “anticipatorily invoke Miranda rights. The Court said that it had never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than a custodial interrogation.

This line of cases chipping away at the Miranda protections explains why the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), on November 13, 2024, reached the decision it did in the case of Sedrick Johnson.

Immediately after being arrested on outstanding warrants, Sedrick Johnson told the police, “I need to talk to a lawyer. That request was made prior to any Miranda warning being given. Later, after being given a Miranda warning, Johnson confessed to the offenses for which he was convicted. The trial court suppressed Johnson’s confession, finding that the “I need to talk to a lawyer request was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel. The intermediate court of appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling, finding that a “custodial interrogation environment is sufficient to trigger a Miranda warning. The CCA reversed both lower court rulings. Here’s why:

Sedrick Johnson lived with his girlfriend in Dallas County. She was the legal guardian of an 18-month-old child named Junior. The child was reported missing one morning in October 2019. Hundreds of people within various divisions of the Dallas Police Department launched a search for the child. Johnson went to the police station to offer assistance in the search.

In the meantime, as is the case in situations involving a missing person, Detective Angela Hernandez was assigned to develop background information on all the people close to Junior. One of those people was, of course, Sedrick Johnson. He was escorted to a police interview room at 2:30 p.m., where he was interviewed by Detective Latoya Carrington. At roughly 5:57 p.m., Detective Hernandez initiated a second interview with Johnson before leaving the room to discuss the situation with other detectives.

Johnson remained in the interview room, although not in custody.

At 7:18 p.m., he walked out of the interview room to inquire about his children.

Roughly 17 minutes later, Johnson returned to the hallway in front of the interview room, where he asked a police sergeant where his children were. The sergeant responded by saying that they were being questioned at the Dallas Advocacy Center about a criminal offense. When asked by Johnson what that offense was, the sergeant responded, “kidnapping, explaining that the children were witnesses to the offense.

At that point, the following exchange took place between Johnson and the sergeant. The sergeant told Johnson that the children were there and saw what happened, to which Johnson replied:

“Who says they were there?

The sergeant responded: “They did.

Johnson was placed in handcuffs.

It was then that Johnson said, “Okay, I need to talk to a lawyer.

The sergeant responded, “Okay, but you still need to sit in that room.

After some additional conversation about the welfare of his children, Johnson was told by the sergeant that he was under arrest on out-of-county warrants.

Johnson remained in the interview room for the next six hours. No lawyer was called. He continuously asked about the welfare of his children. During those six hours, Johnson also called out for some water, assistance getting up from the floor, and the loosening of the handcuffs. He also inquired about the arrest warrants and whether he would be transported somewhere, all the while seeking information about the welfare of his children and girlfriend.

At about 1:20 a.m., roughly 11 hours after Johnson had been put in the interview room for questioning, Detective Rico Harris entered the interview room. He promptly gave Johnson the required Miranda warning under Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Johnson signed and dated the card, after which he agreed to talk to Harris.

Johnson told the detective that he had been playing with Junior when the child began to vomit. He then wrapped the child in a blanket and started driving around. He said he was afraid to take the child to a hospital because of what people might think. He eventually put the child in a dumpster. The child’s body was later recovered from a local landfill.

Johnson was indicted for capital murder of a child less than ten years of age and injury to a child by omission.

While the lower Texas court of appeals recognized that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a suspect cannot invoke their Miranda rights anticipatorily (in situations other than a custodial interrogation), the court pointed out that Johnson had been subjected to a “custodial interrogation environment because he had been questioned both before and after being placed in custody without a Miranda warning.

The CCA saw it differently.

In its analysis of the Johnson fact situation, the CCA noted that Supreme Court jurisprudence requires that “when a suspect invokes his right to counsel under Miranda, the police must not only cease any current interrogation, but they may not seek to interrogate the suspect again—even after further Miranda warnings—unless the suspect has been given counsel or the suspect himself initiates further communication with the police. The Supreme Court has referred to [this] rule as ‘a second layer of prophylaxis on top of the Miranda rule.”

The Texas highest criminal court flatly rejected the court of appeals conclusion that Johnson had been subjected to a “custodial interrogation environment. The high court pointed out that Johnson had voluntarily participated in the two interviews before he was taken into custody. The court also noted that once Johnson had been taken into custody, no one attempted to interrogate him before Detective Harris gave him a Miranda warning and initiated his interrogation.

In reversing the “custodial interrogation environment as a Miranda trigger, the CCA concluded:

“… The court of appeals erred by relying on a supposed ‘custodial interrogation environment to establish a violation of Appellee’s right to counsel under Miranda. When Appellee voluntarily participated in the first two interviews, he was not in custody. Later, when Appellee was placed in custody, he was not given Miranda warnings, and no one attempted to interrogate him. Later still, before interrogating him, Detective Harris gave Appellee Miranda warnings for the first time. It was at that point—when the detective read the warnings—that Appellee had the choice contemplated by Miranda: having been told for the first time while in custody that he had a right to counsel before and during interrogation, Appellee could have invoked that right. He chose not to.

“And the court of appeals erred to rely upon any supposed police ‘plan to conduct a custodial interrogation later. Assuming, without deciding, that the record would support a conclusion that the police had such a plan, it does not matter. The only time a plan to interrogate matters is when a police officer begins a custodial interrogation without giving Miranda warnings as part of a ‘question-first, warn later technique that is deliberately designed to circumvent Miranda. That did not happen here. Appellee was given Miranda warnings before any custodial interrogation commenced. As we have explained, once he received the Miranda warnings, he could have then invoked his right to counsel. He did not. The police interrogation that followed complied with Miranda.”

The best rule when either suspected of or charged with a crime is not to speak to the police without an attorney being present. This advice applies equally to situations where an individual is in custody, arrested, or approached for a voluntary interview. The police’s goal of any “interview,“questioning, or “interrogation is to secure incriminating statements. Do not succumb to the natural desire to “clear things up or help “close the investigation.

“I will not talk to you without a lawyer. These are magic words, whether you are described as a witness, subject, or target of investigation.  

Silence in a police interview room or police vehicle is golden whether or not the words “you’re under arrest are announced. You can help “clear things up later, after you talk to your lawyer.

Categories

Archives

Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now

Testimonials

John T. Floyd Law Firm IconJohn T. Floyd Law Firm

3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston

4.9 108 reviews

John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Request A Confidential Consultation

Fields marked with an * are required

"*" indicates required fields

I Have Read The Disclaimer*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Our Location

Copyright © 2025 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.