Case Name: STATE v. Brian BURBINE
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1982-09-09
Citations: 451 A.2d 22
Docket Number: No. 79-212-C.A.
Parties: STATE v. Brian BURBINE.
Judges: with whom KELLEHER, Justice, joins,
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 451
Pages: 22–41

Head Matter:
STATE v. Brian BURBINE.
No. 79-212-C.A.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Sept. 9, 1982.
Reargument Denied Dec. 16, 1982.
Dennis J. Roberts II, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.
William F. Reilly, Public Defender, Paula Rosin, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant.

Opinion:
OPINION
WEISBERGER, Justice.
This case comes before us on appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court finding the defendant, Brian Burbine (Burbine), guilty of murder in the first degree and imposing a life sentence as required by statute. Prior to trial, Burbine sought to suppress three incriminating statements obtained from him by officers of the Providence police department. The sole thrust of this appeal relates to the denial of the motion to suppress.
On March 3, 1977, at about 7 a.m., Mary Jo Hickey (Mary) was found unconscious in a parking lot on Elmwood Avenue in Providence. She was taken to St. Joseph Hospital where she remained for a time and was then transferred to the Rhode Island Medical Center. She was treated there until March 25, 1977, when she died from injuries to the skull and brain resulting from bludgeon wounds inflicted by a large metal pipe which had been found near the scene of the attack.
The state called two witnesses, who testified that Burbine left Rhode Island and went to their house in Maine on March 4, 1977. Nancy Jean Sanders James (Nancy) stated that Burbine stayed with her and her brother, Donald Sparks (Sparks), for approximately one month. While he was in Maine, Burbine told Nancy that he had met Mary at a downtown Providence bar on the evening of March 2. Mary had bought him some drinks and then asked for a ride to her home. Burbine further stated that on the way to her house, he pulled into a parking lot and made advances to Mary. When the advances were resisted, Burbine slapped Mary "a time or two" and threw her out of the car. "[T]hat's all he knew." He stated that this had all happened "just before he came to Maine." Burbine told substantially the same story to Sparks, except that he stated to Sparks that Mary had blood on her as a result of his striking her. Burbine also informed Sparks that the next morning he had washed the blood from the interior of his automobile.
On June 29, 1977, the Cranston police arrested three men in connection with a charge of breaking and entering. One of the trio was Burbine; the other two were Sparks and a man named DiOrio. All three suspects were transported to the Cranston police headquarters. Detective Ferranti of the Cranston police two days earlier had received information from a confidential informant that a man named "Butch" who lived at 306 New York Avenue in Providence was responsible for the killing of Mary. He noted that Burbine and DiOrio had given 306 New York Avenue as their home address. Ferranti questioned DiOrio, who stated that Burbine was the only person living at that address who was called "Butch."
Armed with this information, Detective Ferranti informed Burbine of his Miranda rights, and at that time Burbine would not sign the waiver-of-rights form. However, Burbine did respond that he was the only person called "Butch" who resided at 306 New York Avenue. Ferranti left Burbine in the interrogation room and spoke with DiOrio and Sparks. Both men made statements implicating Burbine in the Providence homicide. Thereupon, Ferranti contacted Captain Milton Wilson of the Providence police department at about 6 p.m. Captain Wilson, along with Lieutenant Bernard Gannon and Detective Edward Traf-ford, proceeded to the Cranston police station for the purpose of questioning Burbine in regard to the killing of Mary. They arrived at approximately 7 p. m. and went to the Cranston detective division where they spoke with Detective Ferranti and then questioned Sparks and DiOrio.
At about 7:45 p. m., Burbine's sister, Sheila Ray, called the office of the public defender (without her brother's knowledge) to seek assistance for her brother who had previously been represented by Richard Casparian of the Public Defender's office in respect to another matter not related to the instant reasons for police custody. In fact, Burbine had missed an appointment with Mr. Casparian the afternoon of his arrest. Barbara Hurst, an appellate attorney, received the call and attempted to contact Mr. Casparian but was unable to reach him. She then called Allegra Munson, an assistant public defender, and informed Ms. Mun-son of the telephone conversation with Sheila Ray.
At approximately 8:15 p. m., Ms. Munson called the Cranston police station and asked that her call be transferred to the detective division. A male voice responded with the word "Detectives." Ms. Munson identified herself and asked if Brian Burbine was being held; the person responded affirmatively. Ms. Munson explained to the person that Burbine was represented by attorney Casparian who was not available; she further stated that she would act as Burbine's legal counsel in the event that the police intended to place him in a lineup or ques tion him. The unidentified person told Ms. Munson that the police would not be questioning Burbine or putting him in a lineup and that they were through with him for the night. Ms. Munson was not informed that the Providence police were at the Cranston police station or that Burbine was a suspect in Mary's murder. The trial justice found as a fact that Ms. Munson did make the call, but further found that there was no collusion or conspiracy on the part of the police "to secrete [Burbine] from his attorney
Lieutenant Gannon testified that he explained the Miranda rights to Burbine and that Burbine waived the rights by signing a waiver-of-rights form. Thereafter, a signed confession was obtained from Bur-bine at approximately 10:20 p. m. on June 29. A second statement was taken at the police station at approximately 11:20 p. m. A waiver-of-rights form was executed in connection with the second statement. The Providence police obtained a third written statement from Burbine during the noon period of the following day following Bur-bine's presentation to the District Court on the breaking-and-entering charge.
All five officers who were involved in Burbine's interrogation at the Cranston police station denied any knowledge of Ms. Munson's call. There was no evidence or finding that the Providence police detectives were aware of Ms. Munson's call.
After the third confession had been obtained, at the request of Detective Traf-ford, Major Leyden of the Providence police department called the Public Defender's office in order to obtain an attorney to represent Burbine in respect to a lineup. Thomas Luongo, Jr., an investigator in the office of the public defender, received the call and conveyed the information to attorney Casparian who went to the Providence police station and consulted with Burbine.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial justice found that Burbine had been thoroughly advised of his right to remain silent, that anything he said would be used against him, and of his right to retained or appointed counsel. He further found that Burbine was not coerced, threatened, nor promised any benefit in return for his statements. The trial justice concluded that Burbine signed waiver-of-rights-forms on three separate occasions and that when he did so, "he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his privilege against self-incrimination. And also his right to counsel."
The defendant contends that all three confessions should have been suppressed on the ground that they were obtained in violation of defendant's right to counsel and his privilege against self incrimination. In order to place the issues raised into sharper focus, a short historical survey of the development of the modern doctrines relating to custodial interrogation will be helpful.
During the first five decades of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court of the United States groped toward a means of striking a balance between the societal need for police interrogation and the protection of the accused from undue coercive pressures. By virtue of the differing constitutional and supervisory responsibilities of the Court in respect to the federal as opposed to state judicial systems, a dual and separate approach was adopted.
In respect to the federal system of law enforcement, the Court utilized a federal statute and later federal rules of criminal procedure in order to shorten the interrogation. See Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 452, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1358, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479, 1482 (1957); McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343-44, 63 S.Ct. 608, 614-15, 87 L.Ed.2d 819, 825-26 (1943). It was thought by Justice Frankfurter and his colleagues that the shortening of interrogation and the requirement that a suspect be presented to a federal magistrate without "unnecessary delay" would reduce the evils of a secret interrogation process at police headquarters. It was further urged that the magistrate would warn the suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. The McNabb-Mallory rule did not purport to be a rule of constitutional dimension but was based upon the Court's supervisory power over the administration of federal criminal justice as well as in implementation of a federal statute in McNabb and, in the Mallory case, Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court did not purport to extend this rule of stringently shortened interrogation to the states.
Indeed, at that time the Court's review of state cases involving allegedly involuntary confessions was based upon a due-process "shock the conscience" test. The first case which resulted in the setting aside of a state conviction wherein a coerced confession had been obtained was Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). In that case the Court found that overt brutality and torture had produced the confession. This shocked the conscience of the Court sufficiently so that the confession was held inadmissible. Other cases met with varied responses. In Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958), a suspect in a murder case was repeatedly interrogated during a period of approximately fourteen hours. His request for an attorney was denied. The suspect was a college graduate who had completed one year in law school. These circumstances were not sufficient to shock the conscience of the Court and it was held that due process had not been violated. In Cicenia v. LaGay, 357 U.S. 504, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523 (1958), a murder suspect requested to be allowed to see his attorney while under questioning by the police. The attorney arrived at the police station while petitioner was being interrogated and was refused admittance. This suspect did not have the benefit of a college education or law school experience. Nevertheless, he failed to achieve the threshold requirement necessary to constitute a violation of due process and his conviction was upheld. In Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1959), the Court's conscience was shocked by the misleading of the suspect by a childhood friend who had become a policeman. The erstwhile friend suggested that his job might depend upon getting a statement from the defendant. The giving of the statement contributed to the conviction and imposition of a death sentence. In that case due process was held to have been violated. The Court's sensitivity to the shocking of conscience had become heightened by the time it considered Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961), and slight pressure exerted by the chief of police who threatened to take the suspect's arthritic wife into custody if the suspect did not confess was held to be sufficient to invalidate the confession. The Court also used this case to point out that an involuntary confession was inadmissible, not because it was unlikely to be true, but because the methods used offended an underlying principle of enforcement of the criminal law — that the authorities might not by coercion prove a charge out of the accused's own mouth. The culmination of the due-process test came with Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963) in which an examination of the totality of circumstances convinced the Court that a written confession had been obtained in an atmosphere of substantial coercion by state authorities.
The following year the Court decided Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) in which it selectively incorporated the privilege against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment into the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, for the first time, the privilege against self-incrimination became applicable to the states. Initially this holding did not herald any remo-dification of the interrogation process, since conventional wisdom at the time did not apply the privilege against self-incrimination to the police interrogation process, because the police had no legal power to compel testimony. See Y. Kamisar, A Dissent from the Miranda Dissents: Some Comments on the "New" Fifth Amendment and the Old "Voluntariness" Test, in Police Interrogation and Confessions 48-55 (1980).
During the same year, a feeble effort was made to control the voluntariness of confessions by the somewhat fortuitous event of a lawyer's having been previously retained in respect to the specific criminal case under examination, and under circumstances where lawyer and client were kept apart by a series of blatant deceptions. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). Moreover, in that case no admonitions had been given to the accused concerning his right to remain silent or his right to assistance of counsel. Indeed, so many of the facts in Escobedo would have been unlikely of repetition that the precedential value of the case was extremely limited and subject to many conflicting interpretations in the various states. See, e.g., State v. Mendes, 99 R.I. 606, 210 A.2d 50 (1965); State v. Dufour, 99 R.I. 120, 206 A.2d 82 (1965); People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 398 P.2d 361, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, cert. denied, 381 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965); People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 1104, 14 L.Ed.2d 152 (1965); Mefford v. State, 235 Md. 497, 201 A.2d 824 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 944, 13 L.Ed.2d 825 (1965); State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448 (1964).
Upon this somewhat murky judicial environment, the Court's opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), came as a brilliant flash of lightning illuminating the interrogational landscape in all directions, but followed by the thunderclap of criticism concerning its effects upon law enforcement. In itself, the Miranda decision was relatively simple and its mandate not unduly difficult in application. Essentially stripped of historical analysis and carefully developed rationale, the Supreme Court imposed a set of rules upon every police officer in the land who might seek to interrogate a person suspected of crime who had been taken into custody or whose freedom had been inhibited in a significant way. The rule required that the following admonitions be given to the suspect: (1) that he has a right to remain silent; (2) that anything which he might say can be used against him in a court of law; (3) that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; (4) that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. The Court went on to say:
"After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him." Id. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726.
This rather straightforward movement of the privilege against self-incrimination from the courtroom into the police station was greeted by intense criticism, perhaps some of it most forcefully presented by the dissenting justices. A sample of such criticism may be taken from Justice White's dissenting opinion.
"In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity. The real concern is not the unfortunate consequences of this new decision on the criminal law as an abstract, disembodied series of authoritative proscriptions, but the impact on those who rely on the public authority for protection and who without it can only engage in violent self-help with guns, knives and the help of their neighbors similarly inclined. There is, of course, a saving factor: The next victims are uncertain, unnamed and unrepresented in this case." (White, J., dissenting). 384 U.S. at 542-43, 86 S.Ct. at 1663, 16 L.Ed.2d at 763.
We note that the Miranda rules have been extended and clarified in more recent opinions, and their relationship to the right to counsel has been expanded and defined. See, e.g., Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969); Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968). The teaching of Miranda and its progeny discloses certain basic principles to which the Court has adhered rather consistently. First, in order to trigger the necessity for Miranda admonitions, the dual elements of custody plus interrogation must exist. Custody or impairment of freedom in a significant way may take place in defendant's home (Orozco), or in a jail not controlled by the interrogator (Mathis). Absent custody or impairment of freedom, focus of suspicion which was so important in Escobedo is no longer of significance (Mathiason and Beckwith). No importance has been attached to the fortuitous circumstances of representation by counsel save in such cases as Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) and Brewer v. Williams, supra, where, after the commencement of judicial proceedings and the appointment or retention of counsel, it becomes impermissible for the police to take any action either surreptitious or overt which is designed or might reasonably be expected to elicit an inculpa-tory response. See also Rhode Island v. Innis, supra (although judicial proceedings had not commenced, counsel had been requested. Consequently a Miranda rather than the Massiah-Brewer analysis was applied).
It seems reasonably apparent that in Miranda the Court placed the burden of admonition squarely upon the police. The Court further required law-enforcement officials to respect without equivocation a suspect's request for counsel or assertion of the right to remain silent.
"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with .the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.
<< sjc ¡‡: j(c
"If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 473-75,86 S.Ct. at 1627-28, 16 L.Ed.2d at 723-24.
Nothing in the Miranda opinion or in succeeding cases has indicated that the right to counsel may be asserted by anyone other than the accused. The strength of Miranda lies in its simplicity. It was designed as a set of sharp bright-line directions which police officers could easily follow. It was not dependent on the kind of fortuitous circumstance exhibited in Escobedo, whose very limited application it transcends and supersedes. Even such a robust exponent of the rights of the accused as Professor Yale Kamisar points out the weak congruence between a defense lawyer's entry into the proceedings and the suspect's need for a lawyer's help:
"Whatever its symbolic value, a rule that turns on how soon a defense lawyer appears at the police station or how quickly he 'spring[s] to the telephone' hardly seems a rational way of reconciling the interests of the accused with those of society." Y. Kamisar, Brewer v. Williams, Massiah, and Miranda: What is "interrogation"? When Does it Matter? in Police Interrogation and Confessions 220 (1980).
Consequently, we are of the opinion that the principles of Miranda place the assertion of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel upon the accused, and not upon benign third parties, whether or not they happen to be attorneys.
In essence, defendant urges us to adopt a New York rule originated in People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 193 N.E.2d 628, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1963), and further explicated in People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 239 N.E.2d 537, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1968), and People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 348 N.E.2d 894, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1976), sometimes referred to as the Donovan-Arthur-Hobson rule. This rather sweeping rule states that:
"Once an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel." [Citation omitted.] People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d at 329, 239 N.E.2d at 539, 292 N.Y.S.2d at 666.
The New York rule as interpreted in People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 205 N.E.2d 852, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924 (1965) has been given such effect as to bar the use of an inculpatory statement made by a suspect in California after the defense lawyer telephoned the Nassau County chief of police in New York that he was representing the defendant. The principle to be derived from the New York cases is that once the police know or have been apprised of the fact that the defendant is represented by counsel or that an attorney has communicated with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant, the accused's right to counsel attaches and may not be waived in the absence of counsel. This rule extended the constitutional protections of a defendant under the New York Constitution beyond those afforded by the Federal Constitution as asserted by Chief Justice Breitel in People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d at 483-84, 348 N.E.2d at 897-98, 384 N.Y.S.2d at 422. The rule has been rejected in Moore v. Wolff, 495 F.2d 35 (8th Cir. 1974); United States v. Durham, 475 F.2d 208 (7th Cir. 1973); Coughlan v. United States, 391 F.2d 371 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 870, 89 S.Ct. 159, 21 L.Ed.2d 139 (1968); State v. Marks, 113 Ariz. 71, 546 P.2d 807 (1976); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 203 S.E.2d 537 (1974); State v. Smith, 294 N.C. 365, 241 S.E.2d 674 (1978). Most persuasively, this view is at odds with the expressed opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brewer v. Williams, supra, wherein the Court observed:
"The Court of Appeals did not hold, nor do we, that under the circumstances of this case Williams could not, without notice to counsel, have waived his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It only held, as do we, that he did not." (Footnote omitted.) 430 U.S. at 405-06, 97 S.Ct. at 1243, 51 L.Ed.2d at 441.
This court has in the past attempted to follow in interrogation cases the mandates of the Supreme Court of the United States as we have understood them to be. See, e.g., State v. Benton, R.I., 413 A.2d 104 (1980); State v. Cline, R.I., 405 A.2d 1192 (1979); State v. Innis, 120 R.I. 641, 391 A.2d 1158 (1978), vacated, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. LaRosa, 112 R.I. 571, 313 A.2d 375 (1974).
In considering whether to depart from the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in order to give further protection under limited circumstances to an accused who has not exercised his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, we must consider the balance of interests between society's need for reasonable law enforcement as against the accused's right to remain silent and to assert his privilege against self-incrimination. We recognize that other jurisdictions have adopted the New York rule or a variation thereof. State v. Jackson, 303 So.2d 734 (La.1974); Commonwealth v. McKenna, 355 Mass. 313, 244 N.E.2d 560 (1969); State v. Haynes, 288 Or. 59, 602 P.2d 272 (1979); Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 471 Pa. 318, 370 A.2d 322 (1977); State v. Jones, 19 Wash. App. 850, 578 P.2d 71 (1978).
We are not persuaded by those authorities that the New York rule strikes the appropriate balance. In the case at bar, as in State v. Cline, supra, no relationship of attorney and client existed between Ms. Munson and defendant. As in State v. Fuentes, R.I., 433 A.2d 184 (1981), the fact that another member of the public defender's office had represented defendant on a completely unrelated matter did not create an attorney-client relationship by virtue of Ms. Munson's unsolicited telephone call.
Our dissenting brethren suggest that there was an obligation on the part of the police to inform Burbine of the telephone call in order that his written and verbal waivers of his right to remain silent and the right to counsel might be knowing and intelligent. We cannot accept this suggestion. In the case at bar defendant had previously been represented by the public defender's office. The evidence is overwhelming in support of the trial justice's finding that he was admonished of the right to remain silent and of his right to retained or appointed counsel. It hardly seems conceivable that the additional information that an attorney whom he did not know had called the police station would have added significantly to the quantum of information necessary for the accused to make an informed decision as to waiver. Indeed, the additional information seems somewhat inconsequential in the light of defendant's own knowledge as supplemented by the admonitions of the police officers. The dissenting justices acknowledge, unlike the Court of Appeals of New York, that after proper warning an arrested person can voluntarily waive the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Their sole disagreement with the admissibility of the confessions in this ease lies in the failure of the Cranston police, whether through negligence or otherwise, to pass on the information concerning Ms. Munson's telephone call.
We fear that if such a rule were adopted, there would be nothing to prevent or discourage the office of the public defender or other defense counsel who represent a large number of recidivistic clients from sending to the various police departments throughout the state the names of these clients, together with a request that these attorneys be notified in the event that such individuals are arrested for criminal conduct. Under such a rule, the failure of the police, whether by administrative inadequacy or otherwise, to effectuate such a notification would then be fatal to the admissibility of any statements thereafter obtained. As the crime rate increases and as organized society seems ever more impotent to deal with crime on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and in our homes, this addition to the Miranda requirements seems as unwise on policy grounds as it is unnecessary on constitutional grounds. Thus far, the Supreme Court of the United States has placed no such mandate upon us.
Dissenting justices in State v. Jackson correctly point out that both Miranda and Escobedo hold that the failure to honor the accused's request to consult with an attorney constituted a denial of the accused's right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See State v. Jackson, 303 So.2d at 738 (Saunders, C. J. and Marcus, J., dissenting). To modify this right as did the Supreme Court of Louisiana so that it may be invoked by family members or any other third party who happens to be a member of the bar would badly upset the balance between the societal interests and those of the accused. The next logical step would be to ban confessions altogether on the theory that a person should not be denied his right to counsel on the fortuitous circumstance that someone might not see fit to call the station. We are unwilling-to take the first step which would inevitably lead to the ultimate step. We consider that the paramount function of government is the security of the citizens, victims as well as those who may be accused of crime. It has been recognized that the questioning of suspects is indispensable in law enforcement. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 578, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1865, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037, 1044 (1961). Perhaps the essential purpose served by police interrogation has been most graphically set forth by Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 61-62, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1801, 1810 (1949):
"I suppose no one would doubt that our Constitution and Bill of Rights, grounded in revolt against the arbitrary measures of George III and in the philosophy of the French Revolution, represent the maximum restrictions upon the power of organized society over the individual that are compatible with the maintenance of organized society itself. They were so intended and should be so interpreted.
"I doubt very much if they require us to hold that the State may not take into custody and question one suspected reasonably of an unwitnessed murder. If it does, the people of this country must discipline themselves to seeing their police stand by helplessly while those suspected of murder prowl about unmolested."
We therefore strike the balance at the point required by Miranda and its progeny. We decline to extend it by adoption of the Donovan-Arthur-Hobson rule or a variation thereof.
In the case at bar the finding of the trial justice that the confessions were voluntary and made following intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and the right to remain silent was supported by ample evidence and was certainly not clearly wrong. See State v. Fuentes, supra; State v. Amado, R.I., 424 A.2d 1057 (1981); State v. LaRosa, supra; State v. Leavitt, 103 R.I. 273, 237 A.2d 309, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 881, 89 S.Ct. 185, 21 L.Ed.2d 155 (1968).
For the reasons stated, the appeal of the defendant is denied and dismissed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court.
. When presented to the District Court, defendant purported to plead guilty to a reduced charge of malicious damage to property. He was then sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence upon his release from the custody of the Providence police. Thereafter, the public defender moved to vacate this sentence as constitutionally infirm under standards laid down in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), since Burbine was unrepresented by counsel. However, the sentence was appealed to the Superior Court before the motion to vacate was addressed in the District Court. On June 24, 1979, Burbine pleaded nolo to the charge in the Superior Court, with representation by legal counsel, and was sentenced to six months imprisonment concurrent with a previous sentence imposed.
. The "shock the conscience" test was also utilized in state search and seizure cases prior to the adoption of the exclusionary rule. Ro-chin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209, 96 L.Ed. 183, 190 (1952).
. It is interesting to observe that the deceptive practices of Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), were practically identical to the practices which were held not to constitute a violation of due process in Cicenia v. LaGay, 357 U.S. 504, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523 (1958). This simply was a manifestation of the difference between the "shock the conscience" test and the application of a different evaluation under the specific guarantee of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
. It should be noted that People v. Donovan, 13 N.Y.2d 148, 193 N.E.2d 628, 243 N.Y.S.2d 841 (1963) was decided prior to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). As was demonstrated in Vignera v. New York, one of the Miranda group of cases, it was not part of the procedural safeguards of the law of New York at that time to admonish suspects prior to interrogation of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 493-94, 86 S.Ct. at 1637-38, 16 L.Ed.2d at 734-35.
. Our brother Kelleher suggests that the trial justice's finding that an assistant public defender did in fact call the Cranston detective division was incongruous with the finding that there was no conspiracy or collusion on the part of the Cranston police department to se Crete this defendant from his attorney. He therefore considers the finding to be clearly wrong. In the light of this comment, it should be noted that the principal interrogation of defendant concerning a suspected homicide was conducted by the Providence police and not by the Cranston police. It should further be noted that the Cranston police had finished their interrogation of defendant in respect to a breaking and entering charge for which he had been arrested. Thus, the disparate activities of the representatives of the two police departments could give rise to a reasonable inference that the unidentified member of the Cranston police department who answered the telephone may well have been talking about an entirely different charge than that concerning which the Providence police would later interrogate. Thus, the trial justice's finding was based upon a set of unusual circumstances which did not inevitably point in the direction of conspiracy or collusion.
. Our brother K,elleher with his usual perceptiveness is quite correct in his observation that the thrust of the Miranda decision was the protection of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In his eagerness to extend Miranda, however, he overlooks the fact that the privilege against self-incrimination has been consistently held to be a personal privilege and must be asserted by the person entitled thereto, and not by others on his behalf. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 94 S.Ct. 2179, 40 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 93 S.Ct. 611, 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973).