☢ test - Í

the polygraph exam, just as she was not in custody at the time of her previous interviews with officers. And the record does not show that Ramirez “informed the officers that [s]he wanted the [polygraph examination] to end, that [s]he wished to speak with counsel, or that [s]he wished to leave the station.” Vaughn v. State, 282 Ga. 99, 102(4) (646 S.E.2d 212) (2007). It was only following the exam and her incriminating statements that officers made the decision to arrest Ramirez. As soon as Ramirez was moved to another room, the detective read her the Miranda warnings before questioning her. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that Ramirez was not in custody when she made the statements to the polygrapher. See id.” See note on Vaughn (June 4, 2007), below. Jennings v. State, 282 Ga. 679, 653 S.E.2d 17 (November 5, 2007). “When Jennings spoke to the law enforcement officers at the hospital, he ‘had not been released from medical treatment or told by medical personnel that he could leave the hospital. More significantly, he was not isolated by police for questioning....’ Robinson v. State, [278 Ga. 299, 301(2) (602 S.E.2d 574) (2004)]. Thus, he was in a medical, rather than an investigative, setting. See also Moyer v. State, 275 Ga.App. 366, 371(3)(a) (620 S.E.2d 837) (2005) (defendant was in emergency room and not an isolated part of the hospital). The officers did not ask Jennings any pre- Miranda questions regarding what he may have done to Ms. Treadwell. Robinson v. State, supra at 301-302(2). They merely asked him where she was, in an attempt to locate her expeditiously and to assist her if she was alive. The fact that the officers may have suspected Jennings of having committed a murder ‘did not render the statements at issue violative of Miranda. As long as a person is not in custody, it is irrelevant to the Miranda analysis that investigators “(1) might have focused their suspicions upon the person being questioned, or (2) have already decided that they will take the person into custody and charge [him] with an offense.” [Cit.]’ Robinson v. State, supra at 302(2) (where police had already obtained defendant’s bloody clothes). The investigator’s uncontradicted testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress was that Jennings was under observation as a potentially suicidal person, that he was never restrained, and that ‘he was not in police custody but was free to leave as far as law enforcement was concerned.’ Robinson v. State, supra. The officers’ testimony ‘supports the finding that [Jennings] was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda at the time he made the statements ... at the hospital. [Cit.] Consequently it was not error to refuse to suppress the statements on the basis urged.’ Robinson v. State, supra. See also Alwin v. State, 267 Ga.App. 236, 239(2) (599 S.E.2d 216) (2004). Compare Mayberry v. State, 267 Ga.App. 620, 623 (600 S.E.2d 703) (2004) (numerous restrictions on defendant’s freedom instituted by police); Moyer v. State, supra at 371- 372(3)(b) (defendant held down and handcuffed to gurney).” Sears and Hunstein dissent on this issue : “[Investigator] Godden’s claim that Jennings ‘was free to leave as far as law enforcement was concerned’ strains credulity to the breaking point. No responsible law enforcement officer would allow a man like Jennings – who showed up at the hospital covered in blood, with no physical injuries of his own, and claiming he had just beaten someone to death – to simply get up and leave. If common sense alone were not enough to disprove Godden’s claim, there would still be the directly contradictory testimony of the armed deputy sheriff who actually guarded Jennings that he would not have allowed Jennings to leave the room without further instructions from his superiors. In any event, the subjective intent of Godden and the deputy sheriff is not determinative; what matters is what a reasonable person in Jennings’s condition, taking into account all the relevant circumstances, would have believed his position to be.” See note on Robinson (September 13, 2004), below. Accord, Timmreck v. State , 285 Ga. 39, 673 S.E.2d 198 (February 9, 2009) (quoting bolded section above); Davis v. State , 320 Ga.App. 753, 740 S.E.2d 707 (March 25, 2013) (defendant “was in a medical, rather than an investigative setting,” in circumstances similar to Jennings ). Compare Carder (December 11, 2009), above (officer had hospital personnel detain defendant when she refused treatment; trial court properly suppressed subsequent non-Mirandized statements). State v. Pye, 282 Ga. 796, 653 S.E.2d 450 (October 29, 2007). “The State …contends that [co-defendant] Chambers was not in custody prior to his Miranda warnings being given to him. While the trial court did not make an explicit finding that Chambers was in custody, … the court implicitly found that Chambers was in custody. And, there was evidence to support that finding. There was testimony that: the first thing police officers did when approaching Chambers at the store where he was employed was to handcuff him; they took him to a private room in the store; security cameras showed that he remained in handcuffs in that room; he was walked out of the store between police officers, still handcuffed; he was driven to the police station in handcuffs; and he was questioned by two officers in an interrogation room with the door closed, although he was not in handcuffs during the questioning. [fn] We agree with the trial court that Chambers was in custody for purposes of requiring Miranda warnings.” Distinguished, Folsom (November 2, 2009), above. Grayer v. State, 282 Ga. 224, 647 S.E.2d 264 (June 25, 2007). No error where trial court determined that defendant was not in custody when he gave statement to police. “As revealed at [defendant’s] Jackson v. Denno hearing, investigators executing a search warrant for evidence of the crimes at [defendant’s] house requested that [defendant] accompany them to the police station for questioning. [Defendant] consented to the investigators’ request and was transported to the police station in a regular unmarked vehicle. [Defendant] was never hand-cuffed; the door to the interview room was open; and