## Facts

- A state police officer investigated a residential burglary; the victim identified Carl Ray Mathiason as a possible suspect because he was a parolee and associated with her son.
- After unsuccessful attempts to reach Mathiason, the officer left a note asking him to call.
- Mathiason called and agreed to meet the officer at the state patrol office near his apartment.
- The officer met Mathiason in a hallway, shook hands, took him to an office, told him he was not under arrest, and closed the door; they sat across a desk.
- The officer stated he believed Mathiason was involved, suggested truthfulness could be considered by prosecutors or the judge, and falsely claimed fingerprints had been found.
- After a few minutes, Mathiason admitted taking the property and gave a taped confession.
- The interview lasted about 30 minutes; Mathiason left the station without restraint and was arrested later.
- At a bench trial for first-degree burglary, the confession was admitted over a Miranda-based suppression motion; the trial court found Mathiason was not in custody. The intermediate appellate court affirmed, but the state supreme court reversed on the theory that the interview occurred in a “coercive environment.”

## Issues

1. Whether a suspect who voluntarily comes to a police station, is told he is not under arrest, is questioned in a closed office, confesses, and then leaves freely is “in custody” or otherwise significantly deprived of freedom so that Miranda warnings are required.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held Mathiason was not in custody and was not otherwise significantly deprived of freedom of action.
- Because the interview was noncustodial, the failure to give Miranda warnings did not require suppression of the confession.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation: questioning initiated after a person is taken into custody or otherwise significantly deprived of freedom of action.
- A generally “coercive” setting, standing alone, does not make questioning custodial; most police interviews of suspects carry some pressure.
- A voluntary station-house interview is not custodial where the suspect is informed he is not under arrest, the encounter is brief, and the suspect leaves without hindrance.
- Police deception or implied consequences of “truthfulness” may bear on voluntariness in other contexts, but does not itself establish Miranda custody absent a significant restraint on freedom of movement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Miranda warnings were not required because the interview was a voluntary, brief station-house encounter in which Mathiason was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave, so his confession was not subject to suppression on Miranda grounds.


Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977)