Tavitas, J.
Tony Atkins appeals the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion to correct error regarding the trial court’s earlier grant of Atkins’ motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
Atkins raises two issues, which we revise and restate as: I. Whether Atkins was in custody during the search of his backpack and questioning. II. Whether the search of Atkins’ backpack violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution. III. Whether the questioning of Atkins violated his rights under the United States Constitution.
…
Atkins appeals the grant of the State’s motion to correct error and denial of Atkins’ motion to suppress the results of the search of Atkins’ backpack and his statements to the officers.
…
Both issues raised by Atkins require us to determine whether Atkins was in custody at the time of the search of his backpack and his statements to the officers. As discussed in greater depth in Sections II and III, if Atkins was in custody, he was entitled to certain advisements under Pirtle and Miranda. Atkins argues that he was in police custody, but the State argues that Atkins was the subject of a Terry stop, and not a custodial detention.
…
There is no bright line rule to determine whether Atkins was merely subjected to a Terry stop or whether he was in custody. The State argues that Atkins was not in custody until he was handcuffed. Atkins argues that, at some point, the interaction went from a Terry stop to a custodial situation. After considering the totality of the circumstances and the factors identified by our Supreme Court in Ruiz and Meredith, we conclude that Atkins was in custody.
Atkins and Williams were confronted in the apartment complex parking lot by multiple officers, some of whom were in uniform. The officers separated Atkins and Williams. Atkins almost immediately learned that the officers were investigating a burglary and that Atkins’ name had been raised. Over the course of the interaction, the officers repeatedly told Atkins to sit on the curb, would not let him approach a “witness,” and would not let him use the restroom. Although Atkins initially allowed the officers to look in his backpack to check for weapons, officers then repeatedly asked to look at the laptops in the backpack. Atkins was agitated and repeatedly and loudly denied the officers’ requests and asked about his rights.
The officers also suggested Atkins should cooperate and implied adverse consequences for noncooperation. One officer told Atkins, “We got a job to do, let us get through it, the quicker you cooperate with us the quicker we get the hell outta here.” State’s Ex. A. Detective Baker told Atkins, “I get it, but when we’re asking questions, you gotta, you gotta cooperate, you know what I’m saying? Because it ain’t like we just gonna disappear and walk off.” Id. After more than twenty minutes of argument with the officers, Atkins told Detective Baker that he had just purchased the laptops for $450.00 and allowed Detective Hunter to look at the laptops. Detective Hunter then discovered that one of the laptops belonged to Lambert based on the username. At this point, the interaction between Atkins and the officers was almost thirty minutes long. Approximately fifteen or twenty minutes later, Atkins was handcuffed and transported to the police station.
Although Atkins was initially not handcuffed, he was restrained, told that he was a suspect in a crime, and was subjected to vigorous questioning about the contents of his backpack.
…
Under these circumstances, Atkins’ freedom of movement was curtailed because a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave, and Atkins was subjected to inherently coercive pressures… Accordingly, we conclude Atkins was in custody.
…
We have concluded that Atkins was in custody during the search of the laptop in his backpack. See supra Section I. Accordingly, we conclude that Atkins was in custody and was entitled to a Pirtle advisement prior to the search of the laptop in his backpack. Atkins argues that he was not given a Pirtle advisement prior to the search of the laptop in his backpack, but the State does not address the argument. It is undisputed that Atkins was not given a Pirtle advisement before the search of the laptop in his backpack when he was in custody.
…
Because Atkins did not receive a Pirtle warning prior to the search of the laptop in his backpack and was entitled to one and did not explicitly waive his right to counsel prior to the search, the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to correct error and reversing the earlier grant of Atkins’ motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search.
…
Atkins also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements that he made to the officers pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
…
We have determined that Atkins was in custody. See supra Section I. As such, Atkins was entitled to an advisement of his Miranda rights prior to the police questioning him, which he did not receive. The trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to correct error and reversing the earlier grant of Atkins’ motion to suppress his statements to the police.
Conclusion
The trial court erred when it found that Atkins was not in custody and was not entitled to Pirtle and Miranda advisements. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to correct error and by reversing the earlier grant of Atkins’ motion to suppress. We reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.