Aurora police did not need to provide a Miranda warning to a road rage suspect before interrogating him outside his apartment building in an accusatory manner, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement must inform suspects of their constitutional rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney prior to interrogating them in custody. “Custody” does not necessarily mean a formal arrest, but rather a restriction of freedom to the degree associated with an arrest. The failure to provide a Miranda warning generally means prosecutors cannot use a defendant’s in-custody statements as evidence in their case.

Police arrived at Terrence Kenneth Eugene’s apartment building to talk to him about a road rage encounter from March 2018. Although it was unclear whether Eugene or the other motorist initiated the confrontation, Eugene fled the scene after a fight and the other driver called authorities.

Officer Christopher Thivierge questioned Eugene within a 27-minute window. Near the end, Eugene admitted to hitting the other driver, but denied being the instigator. An Arapahoe County jury convicted him of assault and he received eight years in prison.

Eugene attempted to have his incriminating statements excluded from trial, arguing he was interrogated in custody and, consequently, needed a Miranda warning. A trial judge disagreed with Eugene, but a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed Eugene’s convictions.

The panel’s majority saw Eugene’s interrogation in three phases. First, Thivierge questioned Eugene outside the building. Second, Thivierge left Eugene alone with other officers while he spoke to Eugene’s wife inside. Finally, Thivierge reengaged Eugene outside, which is when Eugene admitted to hitting the victim.

Judge Neeti V. Pawar, writing for herself and Judge W. Eric Kuhn, believed that during the final portion of the interrogation, Eugene was effectively in custody and required a Miranda warning. She cited the factors that illustrated an arrest-like atmosphere:

• Eugene was separated from his wife and Thivierge denied his request to use the bathroom

• Thivierge used an accusatory tone, asking Eugene, “Why do you keep lying?” and “Do you see how this looks right now?”

• Thivierge falsely claimed there was video footage of Eugene assaulting the victim

• An officer was blocking the doorway to Eugene’s building

“At this point, a reasonable person in Eugene’s position would feel that his freedom of action was curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest,” Pawar concluded.

Judge Steve Bernard disagreed. He noted the officers did not point their weapons, they did not handcuff Eugene, they questioned him at his home and they never explicitly told Eugene he was prevented from leaving. Bernard acknowledged Eugene’s interrogation was neither a formal arrest nor a consensual interaction, but “for me, this case is closer to the not-in-custody end of the spectrum than the in-custody end.”

The prosecution appealed to the state Supreme Court, urging it to side with Bernard’s dissent.

“I’m not sure I found a case that was right outside the defendant’s front door where there was custody found,” said Senior Assistant Attorney General Gabriel P. Olivares during oral arguments.

In a Sept. 9 opinion, the court agreed the interrogation outside Eugene’s home did not present a “serious danger of coercion” normally associated with custody.

“Furthermore, the officers here barely restrained Eugene — let alone to a degree commensurate with a formal arrest,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III. “The officers didn’t brandish weapons, lay hands on Eugene, handcuff or otherwise physically restrain him, nor did they demand he stay in one place. Instead, Eugene was able to move about freely in the parking lot — even lighting and smoking a cigarette.”

Hood added that Eugene himself “never sought to terminate the encounter.”

The justices returned the case to the Court of Appeals to consider any remaining issues in the appeal.

The case is People v. Eugene.