We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

When is Custody Custody in a Custodial Setting?

This question is critical when you want to question a suspect who is in custody. This question came up recently when an officer called the author.  The officer wanted to talk through strategies and pitfalls when one desires to question an in custody suspect.


Remember Shatzer v. Maryland

The quickest easiest takeaway from that case was the requirement the US Supreme Court made up about when you can reinitiate questioning when a suspect invokes the right to remain silent.  The Court said you must wait 14 days. Another, significant legal issue was addressed in Shatzer; What is custody in a custodial setting for Miranda purposes? 


Shatzer was serving time on a conviction in prison his sentence when police tried to question him about another molest case. Shatzer invoked his right to an attorney when Mirandized.  Shatzer was released from the room in which he was being questioned and the case was not pursued.

An officer went back approximately three years later and took Shatzer to an interview room, Mirandized Shatzer who waived his rights and confessed. Shatzer was convicted and on appeal his attorneys argued that Shatzer invoked and was never released from custody so his confession should be suppressed.

In addition to the 14 day rule, the court made a distinction between Miranda custody and being in prison.  Once the suspect is released from Miranda custody and sent back to his normal situation the 14 days begins.

It would seem as though it was clear that just being in custody didn’t mean one was in custody for Miranda purposes. 


The court in Howes v. Fields made clear that that is the case.  Fields was in prison.  Investigators brought him to an interview room and told him he was free to leave at any time. He was not handcuffed and provided food and water during the interview. Fields confessed.  The U.S. Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions that held Fields was in custody based upon his prison status and should have been Mirandized.  The U.S. Supreme Court again said that taking an inmate from his normal surrounding to an interview room might trigger the need for Miranda warnings.  But here, Fields was given the Beheler admonishment, not restrained and provided food and water. The U.S. Supreme Court held that that situation was not custodial for Miranda purposes. 

As advised earlier, if you are going into a custodial setting and remove a suspect from his normal surroundings and take him to in interview room the rules are substantially the same as dealing with a suspect who is not in prison.  A Beheler admonishment, no restraint, etc are great tactics to get what you need in your investigation…without Miranda warnings.  




  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau