## Facts

- Police investigated Daniel J.H. Bartelt in connection with a July 12, 2013 knife attack in a park and, separately, a July 15, 2013 homicide of Jessie Blodgett; the cases were severed for trial.
- Detectives asked Bartelt to come to the station to discuss the park attack; he came voluntarily.
- In the first stationhouse interview, officers did not administer Miranda warnings at the outset and told Bartelt he was not under arrest and could leave at any time.
- The questioning was described as conversational, without aggressive or confrontational tactics, and Bartelt was not physically restrained.
- About 30 minutes into the first interview, Bartelt confessed to the park attack; officers continued asking follow-up questions.
- During the post-confession questioning, Bartelt asked to speak to a lawyer.
- Detectives then stopped the interview, took Bartelt’s cell phone, told him to remain in the interview room, and arrested him roughly ten minutes after the confession.
- The next day, police questioned Bartelt about Blodgett’s homicide after giving Miranda warnings; Bartelt waived and spoke.
- After about 90 minutes in the second interview, Bartelt requested an attorney and questioning ceased.
- Statements from the second interview led police to evidence connecting Bartelt to the homicide.
- Bartelt moved to suppress the first interview statements and all derivative evidence, arguing the first interview was custodial without warnings and that he invoked counsel.
- The circuit court denied suppression on the ground Bartelt was not in custody during the first interview; a jury convicted him of Blodgett’s murder, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Bartelt’s confession during a voluntary stationhouse interview converted the encounter into “custody” for Miranda purposes.
2. Whether Bartelt’s reference to an attorney during the first interview was an unequivocal invocation that barred questioning the next day without counsel.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and upheld the denial of the suppression motion and the murder conviction.
- The court held Bartelt was not in custody for Miranda purposes at the time he confessed in the first interview; the confession did not itself convert the interview into custody.
- The court identified custody as beginning later, when detectives took Bartelt’s phone and instructed him to remain in the interview room, effectively preventing him from leaving.
- Because custody began after the alleged request for counsel, the court declined to decide whether the request was unequivocal and concluded the later Mirandized statements and derivative evidence were admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda protections apply only to custodial interrogation; custody is assessed objectively by whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate questioning and leave.
- Custody is determined under the totality of the circumstances, not by any single fact.
- A suspect’s confession to a serious crime does not, by itself, automatically transform a noncustodial interview into a custodial one.
- A reference to counsel made outside custody does not trigger the Fifth Amendment Miranda-based right to counsel that would bar later questioning under Edwards; a subsequent Mirandized waiver may support admissibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that a voluntary, noncoercive stationhouse interview remained noncustodial through the suspect’s confession and became custodial only when police affirmatively restrained his freedom to leave; because custody postdated the alleged counsel request, later Mirandized questioning and resulting evidence were not suppressed.


State v. Bartelt, 906 N.W.2d 684 (Wis. 2018)