Colorado’s second-highest court agreed last week that a suspect was both in custody and subject to interrogation, meaning Denver police needed to provide a Miranda warning for his statements to be admissible at trial.

However, the three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals simultaneously found Dalani D. Bland’s comments to police about a bar fight did not affect the outcome of his trial, in which a jury found Bland guilty of assault.

Although a trial judge believed police only asked Bland about what happened in order to investigate the assault, not to elicit incriminating information, the panel concluded the circumstances were not so benign.

“Because the officers repeatedly asked Bland to tell his side of the story and what happened while he was handcuffed, we conclude that an interrogation occurred, and that the absence of Miranda warnings rendered Bland’s statements about the incident inadmissible,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre in the Aug. 10 opinion.

Case: People v. Bland

Decided: August 10, 2023

Jurisdiction: Denver

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Rebecca R. Freyre (author)

Neeti V. Pawar

Karl L. Schock

Background: By 4-3, Supreme Court says no Miranda warning necessary for man repeatedly told he was under arrest

Bland and a friend were drinking at a bar along the 16th Street Mall one night in February 2018 when they encountered the victim and his wife. There was no dispute the victim pushed Bland over a table, but there was inconsistent testimony about whether Bland provoked the victim or if the victim said something racist without instigation.

The victim’s party left the bar first. Bland was reportedly “amped up” about the scuffle and wanted to kill the victim. Bland approached the victim’s party at a light rail station and raised a knife. The victim and Bland struggled, with Bland stabbing the victim repeatedly.

Responding police officers encountered Bland nearby and ordered him to the ground. Bland resisted their commands and police physically subdued and handcuffed him. An officer reported they had a suspect “in custody.” 

According to body-worn camera footage, an officer then asked Bland where he was injured and invited him to “tell us your side of the story.” The officer repeatedly asked Bland to “tell us what’s happening,” but Bland initially chose not to answer.

Finally, Bland responded that he was “looking for somebody who f—–g hit me in a bar. So, I walked out, I walked by the light rail and then they just started beating me up.”

Bland told a similar story to medical first responders, specifically that he defended himself from an attack.

Prosecutors charged Bland with attempted murder and assault. Bland’s attorneys sought to exclude the statements Bland made to the officer.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, police must warn a suspect of their rights to consult with an attorney and to remain silent before interrogating them in custody. Exclusion of the statements is the typical penalty for violating Miranda.

Then-Denver District Court Judge William D. Robbins disagreed Bland was in custody, even though he was handcuffed and surrounded by officers. Robbins also deemed the officer’s questioning to be “investigatory and not interrogation.”

A jury convicted Bland of assault but acquitted him of attempted murder.

On appeal, the government did not dispute Bland was in custody, but maintained the questioning did not amount to interrogation that was designed to elicit incriminating information.

During oral arguments, Judge Karl L. Schock wondered about the prosecution’s suggestion that, “even if a question is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, if that’s not the purpose of the question there is no Miranda violation.”

“The Miranda warning provides a lifeline to defendants in Mr. Bland’s situation,” argued public defender Jessica A. Pitts, representing Bland. “That no matter how coercive and overwhelming the police presence is, you get the right to call a lawyer and you do not have to answer the police officer’s question, even if he asks six times.”

The panel concluded Bland was both in custody and subject to interrogation. Freyre wrote that some of the officer’s questions – asking for Bland’s name, inquiring about his injuries – did not require a Miranda warning.

“But when those questions changed and sought Bland’s side of the story, asked repeatedly what had happened, asked if he’d been in a fight with somebody, and asked to just tell them ‘what’s happening’,” she wrote, “they transformed from informational questions into an interrogation, because Bland’s responses were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”

However, the panel did not believe Bland’s statements contributed to his conviction because they suggested he acted justifiably in self-defense and because there was other evidence of Bland’s guilt. Although Freyre acknowledged that several factors indicated police pressured Bland to talk, she wrote that the comments were ultimately a product of Bland’s decision to “voluntarily tell his side of the story.”

The case is People v. Bland.