FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON IN CLERK’S OFFICE APRIL 23, 2020 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON APRIL 23, 2020 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 97268-1 ) v. ) ) En Banc ALEJANDRO ESCALANTE, ) ) Petitioner. ) April 23, 2020 Filed ________________ _______________________________) GONZÁLEZ, J.— In our constitutional system of government, individuals have rights that the government and its agents must respect. Among those rights is the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. U.S. CONST. amend V. To protect this constitutional right, no government agent may interrogate someone in custody without first warning them of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). If Miranda warnings are not given, incriminating statements that result may not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. Id. In this case, Alejandro Escalante was detained for hours in a secured area at a border crossing and, the State concedes, interrogated by federal agents without Miranda warnings. Statements he made during that interrogation were used by the 1 State v. Escalante, No. 97268-1 State to convict him of drug possession. While a traveler briefly detained and questioned at the border is typically not in custody for Miranda purposes, the government’s power to detain and question people at the border without implicating Miranda has limits. Here, those limits were reached. This border detention created the type of inherently coercive environment that demands Miranda warnings to ensure an individual’s choice to speak is the product of free will. We hold that Escalante was in custody when he was interrogated and reverse. FACTS In August 2017, Escalante and three friends went to a music festival in Canada. Transcript of Proceedings at 20-21. On their way home to the United States, they passed through the Frontier border crossing station, where border patrol agents were searching all vehicles coming from the festival as part of a drug enforcement operation. Id. at 19-20, 32, 38. Since they told the first agent that they were coming from the festival, they were directed to the secondary inspection area, and border patrol agents took their documents. Id. at 13, 20-23, 32. At secondary, an agent told the men to leave all their belongings in the van and wait in the secondary lobby. Id. at 22-23. The secondary lobby was an 11 x 14 foot secured room that was not accessible to the public or other travelers. Id. at 13-14. The door to the lobby was locked, with entry and exit controlled by an agent who sat inside the lobby behind a glass partition. Id. at 23, 28-29. Multiple 2 State v. Escalante, No. 97268-1 groups of travelers could be detained in the lobby at the same time if agents were searching multiple vehicles at once. Id. at 29. Once inside ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals