☢ test - Í

determined that Brooks’ statement was not the product of custodial interrogation, and we cannot say that determination was clearly erroneous. See Franks v. State, 268 Ga. 238, 242, 486 S.E.2d 594 (1997).” “Moreover, there is no evidence that [Officer] Romine knew or should have known that his responsive statement was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement from Brooks. [Cits.]” Cook v. State, 270 Ga. 820, 514 S.E.2d 657 (March 19, 1999). At defendant’s capital murder trial, trial court properly admitted statement defendant made to his father, an FBI agent, while in custody. “After [defendant] Cook arrived at the Monroe County sheriff’s office, [father] John Cook asked to speak with his son. John Cook testified that he ‘wanted to know what happened’ and that, though it is difficult to separate out the law enforcement part of his personality, he wanted to speak to his son mostly as a father (‘I was still not thinking in my mind directly and openly that I was an agent with the FBI’). John Cook testified he was not intent on gathering evidence for the state; instead, he wanted ‘to try to persuade Andy to cooperate in hopes of getting a reduced sentence.’ However, John Cook also testified that he was not going to keep any incriminating evidence to himself, and that he had no doubt he would pass on additional information to the investigators. Neither Sheriff Bittick nor any other law enforcement agent asked him to speak with his son. Sheriff Bittick testified that John Cook was a personal friend he had known professionally for a number of years. He also testified that he sometimes permits parents to speak with their children in custody when he feels it is the right thing to do, and not for the purpose of gathering evidence.” “An analysis of Cook’s case reveals the following: 1) John Cook was not part of the investigative team on the Lake Juliette murders (in fact, the FBI did not have jurisdiction to investigate the case); 2) Cook asked to see his father at the same time he requested an attorney; 3) John Cook was not directed by any law enforcement agent connected with Cook’s case to speak to his son – he made the request on his own initiative; 4) John Cook’s motive in speaking with his son was to urge him to cooperate in the hope of getting a plea bargain; and 5) the interview involved hugging and crying by father and son which is not typical of a police interrogation. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not err by finding that John Cook acted as a father and not as an agent of the state when he met with his son on December 5.” “‘[F]ar from being prohibited by the Constitution, admissions of guilt by wrongdoers, if not coerced, are inherently desirable.’ United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977).” Fletcher dissents. Accord, Jackson v. State, 272 Ga. 191, 528 S.E.2d 232 (March 13, 2000). Metts v. State, 270 Ga. 481, 511 S.E.2d 508 (February 8, 1999). Unsolicited statement made by defendant while being transported to jail “was a spontaneous statement made by [defendant] and was not subject to exclusion under Miranda because it was not the product of custodial interrogation. Miller v. State, 263 Ga. 723(3), 438 S.E.2d 81 (1994).” Accord, Ramsey v. State , 272 Ga. 28, 526 S.E.2d 842 (January 31, 2000). Dorsey v. State , 285 Ga.App. 510, 646 S.E.2d 713 (May 23, 2007); Jones v. State , 285 Ga. 328, 676 S.E.2d 225 (April 28, 2009) (defendant “first admitted shooting the victim in a statement he volunteered to the responding police officer.”); Hart v. State , 305 Ga.App. 259, 699 S.E.2d 445 (July 15, 2010) (defendant initiated conversation with agent “while the agent was ‘filling out the standard arrest record for the defendant’”; admissible though defendant invoked Miranda the previous day). 9. CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – WHEN IS DEFENDANT “IN CUSTODY” FOR MIRANDA PURPOSES? Seminal case: McAllister v. State, 270 Ga. 224(1) (507 S.E.2d 448) (1998). Mays v. State, A15A2337, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 833603 (March 4, 2016). In prosecution for making false statements, trial court erred by denying motion to suppress un- Mirandized statement made by defendant to GBI agent while defendant was in custody awaiting probation revocation hearing. 1. Agent interviewed defendant as part of investigation into veracity of community service proof reported to court on defendant’s behalf. “ There is no bright-line rule, however, that after a defendant has been remanded to jail or prison that she is always in custody for purposes of Miranda. Howes v. Fields , 10-680, ___ U.S. ___ (II), 132 S.Ct. 1181, 1188-1189, 182 L.Ed.2d 17, 2012 WL 538280 (February 21, 2012). The question is whether the ‘circumstances [of the interview] are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion. ’ Id. at ____(III)(A) (132 S.Ct. at 1189). In determining whether a person is in custody in this sense, the initial step is to ascertain whether, in light of the objective circumstances of the interrogation, a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. And in order to determine how a suspect would have gauged his freedom of movement, courts must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. Relevant factors include the location of the questioning, statements made during the interview, the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, ... the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning, and whether the relevant environment presents the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at ––––