Department of Human Services Caseworkers Are Not “Law Enforcement Officers” for Miranda Purposes

Introduction

Frazee v. People of the State of Colorado (2025 CO 7) addresses whether a Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworker qualifies as a “law enforcement officer” or “agent of law enforcement” under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and if so, whether Miranda’s rules for custodial interrogation apply when someone in pretrial detention is questioned about facts underlying their custody. The petitioner, Patrick Frazee, was in the Teller County Jail on suspicion of murdering his partner, Kelsey Berreth, and the DHS sought information relevant to child‐welfare proceedings regarding their one‐year‐old daughter. Mary Longmire, a DHS caseworker, interviewed Frazee in jail without providing Miranda warnings. Frazee later moved to suppress his statements on Miranda grounds. The Colorado Supreme Court, relying on principles announced in Densmore v. People (2025 CO 6), held that Longmire was neither a law enforcement officer nor an agent thereof and therefore Miranda does not apply.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve two questions: (1) whether a DHS caseworker is a “law enforcement officer” under Miranda; and (2) if so, whether Miranda custody rules extend to pretrial detainees questioned about custody facts. Relying on Densmore v. People, the Court held that Mary Longmire was neither a law enforcement officer nor an agent for Miranda purposes. Because Miranda applies only when law enforcement actors conduct custodial interrogations, and Longmire performed purely child‐welfare functions under the Colorado Children’s Code, no Miranda warnings were required. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the division’s judgment—upholding the admission of Frazee’s jailhouse statements—on new grounds, without reaching the custody question.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): Established the requirement that custodial interrogations by law enforcement must be preceded by warnings about the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to have counsel appointed if indigent.
Densmore v. People, 2025 CO 6: Announced the totality‐of‐the‐circumstances test to determine whether a non‐law enforcement official acts as an “agent of law enforcement” for Miranda purposes and enumerated non‐exclusive factors to guide that inquiry.
People v. Denison, 918 P.2d 1114 (Colo. 1996); People v. J.D., 989 P.2d 762 (Colo. 1999); People v. Parsons, 15 P.3d 799 (Colo. App. 2000): These cases described factors for determining whether an incarcerated person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes when already confined.
Colorado Children’s Code, § 19-3-501(1), C.R.S. (2024): Authorizes law enforcement to refer dependency and neglect matters to the court and designates DHS to investigate and protect child welfare.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the two‐step analysis from Densmore:

Is the interrogator a law enforcement officer? The Court found that Longmire had no peace‐officer status, no law enforcement training, no statutory authority to arrest, handcuff, or detain, and did not function under police command.
If not, was she acting as an “agent of law enforcement”? Reviewing the totality of the circumstances—including lack of police participation, absence of scripted questions by law enforcement, and the purely child‐welfare purpose of the interview—the Court concluded she was not an agent.

The Court rejected Frazee’s proposed bright‐line rule requiring Miranda warnings for any DHS questioning in which criminal allegations might arise. Such a rule would sweep too broadly and hamper child‐welfare investigations. The Court also declined to impose Miranda because law enforcement had referred the case or shared generalized information with Longmire; rather, the defining criteria remain whether the interviewer is controlled or directed by police, or functions as a surrogate investigator gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that DHS caseworkers performing statutory child protection duties do not trigger Miranda safeguards unless, under the totality‐of‐the‐circumstances, they cross the line into law enforcement functions. Child welfare interviews of parents in custody—so long as conducted without police direction or participation—will not require Miranda warnings. The ruling preserves the integrity of dependency and neglect proceedings, ensures caseworkers can gather information to protect vulnerable children, and avoids chilling social‐services investigations. Future litigants will look to this analysis to assess whether any non‐police actor must issue Miranda warnings before questioning a suspect in custody.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Custodial Interrogation: Questioning that occurs when a person’s freedom of movement is restricted in a way equivalent to formal arrest.
Law Enforcement Agent: A person who, though not a sworn police officer, acts under police direction to gather evidence or compel admissions for criminal prosecution.
Totality of the Circumstances Test: A flexible, multi‐factor assessment that looks at all relevant facts—training, authority, police involvement, purpose of questioning—to decide if Miranda should apply.
Dependency and Neglect Proceeding: A civil court process under the Colorado Children’s Code to protect children alleged to be abused, neglected, or without proper guardians.

Conclusion

Frazee v. People establishes that DHS caseworkers, performing child‐welfare functions under the Colorado Children’s Code and acting independently of law enforcement, are not subject to Miranda’s requirements. By reaffirming and applying the totality‐of‐the‐circumstances test from Densmore v. People, the Colorado Supreme Court balanced the Fifth Amendment’s self‐incrimination protections against the state’s compelling interest in safeguarding children. The ruling ensures social‐services professionals can perform their statutory duties without the procedural burdens of criminal investigations, while preserving Miranda’s core protections for genuine law enforcement interrogations.