## Facts

- In 1968, Ensign Andrew Muns, a U.S. Navy disbursing officer aboard the U.S.S. Cacapon, disappeared while the ship was in Subic Bay, Philippines, and about $8,600 was missing from the disbursing office safe.
- Naval investigators initially concluded Muns had stolen the money and deserted.
- Decades later, NCIS reopened the case and interviewed Michael Edward LeBrun multiple times; in at least three interviews he received Miranda warnings.
- On September 21, 2000, two NCIS agents met LeBrun at a Missouri State Highway Patrol office to discuss the disappearance; LeBrun drove himself and appeared voluntarily.
- LeBrun was told he was not under arrest and was free to leave; he was not handcuffed, restrained, or threatened with physical force, and no weapons were displayed.
- During questioning, agents used psychological and accusatory tactics, including stating he was the prime suspect, discussing the financial and personal costs of a trial, and suggesting prosecution might depend on whether the killing was spontaneous or planned.
- After about 33 minutes, LeBrun confessed that he strangled Muns after being caught stealing from the safe and described concealing the body.
- Agents allowed LeBrun to leave after the confession and did not arrest him immediately.

## Issues

1. Whether LeBrun was in custody for Miranda purposes during the September 21, 2000 interview, requiring warnings before questioning.
2. Whether LeBrun’s confession was involuntary under the Due Process Clause because it resulted from coercion, threats, or improper promises.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit (en banc) reversed the suppression order and remanded.
- The court held LeBrun was not in custody during the interview, so Miranda warnings were not required.
- The court held the confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and not the product of coercion that overbore LeBrun’s will.

## Legal Principles

- Miranda custody is an objective inquiry: whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would understand the situation as a formal arrest or restraint comparable to formal arrest.
- A voluntary interview at a law-enforcement facility is not automatically custodial, even if questioning is accusatory or focused on the suspect, when the person is told he is free to leave and is not restrained.
- Lack of restraint, short duration of questioning, voluntary appearance, explicit advisement of freedom to leave, and the absence of immediate arrest are strong indicators of non-custody.
- Due process voluntariness turns on the totality of the circumstances and asks whether the confession was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.
- Police may discuss potential penalties, encourage truthfulness, and appeal to conscience without rendering a confession involuntary, absent threats or false or concrete promises that overbear the suspect’s will.
- A suspect’s maturity, experience, and familiarity with Miranda warnings may support findings of non-custody and voluntariness.

## Conclusion

The en banc court held that a suspect who voluntarily attends a brief interview, is told he is free to leave, and is not restrained is not in Miranda custody merely because officers use accusatory questioning and psychological tactics, and it further held that such tactics did not render LeBrun’s confession involuntary under due process.


United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc)