Ruling reversed in Miranda case

OLYMPIA – Spokane park security guards had no obligation to give a teenager Miranda warnings before questioning her and eliciting a confession that a marijuana pipe belonged to her, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Tiffany Juel Heritage, then 16, told security guards at Riverfront Park three summers ago, “It’s my pipe” when they asked. That prompted the guards to call the police, who arrested her. She was later found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.

The appeals court reversed the juvenile court’s finding after she argued that she was denied her Miranda warnings about her right to remain silent or face the possibility of her words being used against her.

But a unanimous 8-0 state Supreme Court overturned the appeals bench Thursday and allowed the original conviction to stand.

The high court found that the park guards were acting as agents of the police, but said the setting fell short of the “coercive environment of police custody” that would have triggered the Miranda requirement.

The officers, city employees but not commissioned law enforcement, rode bicycles and wore shorts and T-shirts. The court said the guards noticed four young people in a known “hot spot” for illegal activity in the park, smelled the odor of pot and saw one teen smoking a marijuana pipe.

The officers told the group they needed to ask some questions and then would send them on their way. In reply to a question about the pipe, Heritage eventually acknowledged that it was hers. Police were summoned and the security guards kept the teens occupied with conversation until law enforcement arrived and arrested her.

The high court agreed with her that the security officers were investigating and reporting crimes and drew out a confession, meaning that they were acting as agents of the state.

But the court said the setting didn’t amount to being in custody by the police and that Miranda warnings didn’t have to be given. The opinion, written by Justice Charles Johnson, drew a parallel with questioning by a department store security guard or by police during routine traffic stops.

The court discounted her argument that her youth made her more susceptible to thinking she wasn’t free to leave the park before the police came. But the justices stopped short of saying the age of the suspect can never be taken into account for purposes of the Miranda custody question.Hi