Appeals court: EMT not an ‘agent of the state’ when questioning suspect

Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals ruled this week that a suspect’s incriminating statement to an emergency medical technician was admissible in court even though the man did not receive a Miranda warning.

The court agreed with a Dorchester County circuit judge who found previously that the EMT was not acting as an “agent of the state” when he asked the man, Stanley C. Butler, questions about what had happened.

The lower court “was legally correct in concluding that (the EMT) was not acting as a state agent,” Chief Judge Gregory Wells wrote in a 27-page reported opinion. “It follows that (the EMT’s) question to Butler did not amount to interrogation; therefore, we conclude that Miranda warnings were not required.”

Butler’s appeal stemmed from his arrest in Dorchester County on July 31, 2020. Butler, who had an active warrant open for his arrest, led police on a vehicle chase that started in Talbot County after officers approached his car in a cemetery in Easton.

Police managed to deflate the car’s tires and end the chase in Cambridge, but Butler continued to resist arrest and fight the officers, according to the opinion. After attacking multiple officers and ignoring a Taser, Butler was ultimately taken into custody after a police dog was ordered to bite his right and left arms in an effort to bring him under control.

Butler suffered injuries in the melee and an ambulance came to transport him to an area hospital. The EMT asked questions about Butler’s medical history and at one point said “How did we get to that?” in reference to the Butler’s dog bite and other injuries.

Butler responded “I guess I should not have went for that weapon,” according to the opinion.

The EMT told Butler that was not his concern, according to his later testimony in Butler’s case.

“That is the police’s business, I’m here for your safety and well-being from the time you’re in my care until I get you to the hospital,” the EMT said.

A police officer who was present in the ambulance heard Butler’s remark and began recording his comments, but had not directed the EMT to ask the question, Wells wrote.

Butler moved to suppress the statement when his case went to court. The trial court denied the motion and Butler was ultimately convicted of attempting to disarm a police officer, assaulting a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest.

The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the lower court that the EMT was not acting as an agent of the state when he asked Butler general questions in order to provide medical treatment. The EMT was not a special police officer or acting at the direction of law enforcement, the court concluded.

The appeals court also declined to adopt a different state actor test used in some federal circuits, which assesses whether the state acquiesced to the “intrusive conduct” and whether the person was attempting to help law enforcement.

The court agreed that the EMT asked Butler questions in order to offer medical care, not to help the police officer who was present in the ambulance.

Butler’s lawyers did not return a phone call requesting comment. A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, which handled the appeal, declined to comment.