Thomas Winter v. A. Scribner

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Thomas Andrew Winter appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

1. Winter first argues that the state court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), in holding that custody did not attach until Winter made his second oral request to leave the police interrogation and that Winter’s statements made before that point were therefore admissible. The state court identified the correct legal standard for determining the point of custody when it inquired whether “there was a restraint of person similar to an arrest, and ... whether, viewed objectively, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave.” See Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 662-65 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). When asked, Winter voluntarily agreed to go to the station to answer some questions. Moreover, he was advised that he was not under arrest and was free to leave. In light of these facts, the state court’s determination that Winter was not in custody until the officers ignored his second request to…