Mr Knight Not Interrogated

B. Mr. Knight was not interrogated because he was not a suspect and his statements were voluntary. Mr. Knight was not interrogated while in the patrol car because he was not a suspect in any crime, and his incriminating statements were voluntary and provided more information than Officer Davis asked for. A suspect must interrogated by law enforcement officials without being provided Miranda warnings for his statements to be suppressed. Brownlee, 454 F.3d at 146. To determine if an interaction is an interrogation, courts look at the perceptions of the suspect rather than the intentions of the officer. Brownlee, 454 F.3d at 146. An interrogation consists of express questioning or the functional equivalent. Id. This includes any words or actions

Knight was not interrogated because he initiated the conversation about the crime and volunteered information that he was not asked for. Unlike the officer in Brownlee, who brought up the subject of the carjacking and asked specific questions about the crime like why the defendant used a gun, Mr. Knight was the first person to refer directly to the party and at the Phoenix and Ms. Stone even though Officer Davis only asked a general question about whether Mr. Knight had “ever drop[ped] anyone off” at the Phoenix. Rather, like the defendant in Tolson, who was not specifically asked about his cocaine possession but volunteered that the cocaine officers found belonged to him, Mr. Knight was also never asked specifically about the murder at the Phoenix but volunteered “Yes, okay, I dropped a woman off there earlier tonight. I was headed to a party there anyway. Things got a little out of

Knight was also not interrogated because, though Officer Davis’ questions related to the crime that Mr. Knight was later charged with, Officer Davis had no information to connect Mr. Knight to Ms. Stone’s murder at the time of the interaction. Just as the defendant in Andrews was not a suspect in any crime despite his suspicious behavior, Mr. Knight was not a suspect in any crime even though Officer Davis thought that “something seemed a bit off” with him. Thus, like the officers in Andrews, who did not know that the defendant had committed a crime and therefore could not know their questions would elicit an incriminating response, Officer Davis similarly did not know Mr. Knight was involved in Ms. Stone’s death and could not know her questions would elicit Mr. Knight’s incriminating statements. Since the Andrews court held that the defendant was not interrogated because his statements were not reasonably foreseeable since he was not a suspect in any crime, the fact that Mr. Knight was also not a suspect in any crime means that he was not interrogated his statements were not reasonably foreseeable. Rather, like the defendant in Andrews who seemingly volunteered information about his possession of child pornography—which officers had not asked about—out of guilt, Mr. Knight also seemed to volunteer his connection with Ms. Stone’s death out of guilt. Hence, Mr. Knight’s incriminating statements were not the product of interrogation by Officer