Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion to Suppress Custodial Statements

Text: Defendant claims the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements. As a general matter, before a confession may be admitted into evidence, the State has the burden of affirmatively showing it was made freely and voluntarily, and not under the influence of fear, duress, intimidation, menace, threats, inducements, or promises. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 15:451; State v. West, 408 So.2d 1302, 1307 (La.1982); State v. Dewey, 408 So.2d 1255, 1258 (La.1982). Furthermore, if the statement was made during custodial interrogation, the State must show the defendant was advised of (and waived) his constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State v. Petterway, 403 So.2d 1157, 1159 (La.1981); State v. Sonnier, 379 So.2d 1336, 1355 (La.1979). Once a suspect in custody expresses a desire, at any stage in the process, to deal with the police only through counsel, all questioning must cease and the accused may not be subject to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless he initiates further communication, exchanges or conversation with the police, and validly waives his earlier request for counsel. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda, 384 U.S. at 440-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602. In the present case, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress on May 21, 2001. The first witness to appear was Officer Jimmy Chreene of the Bossier Parish Sheriff's office. Chreene testified he was on patrol on the night of the crime when he observed the victim's vehicle run into a ditch at 10:45 p.m. on Highway 160. The officer approached the scene and recognized defendant from previous encounters. When defendant told the officer he did not have a driver's license, Chreene ran a computer search to determine whether he owned a license and who was the registered owner of the vehicle. Pursuant to the computerized search, the officer learned defendant did not have a driver's license and the vehicle was registered to Mary Malone. He further learned the car had not been reported stolen. Because Chreene had seen defendant working in Malone's yard, the officer did not necessarily suspect he had committed a crime. Chreene asked what had transpired and defendant responded he had been walking north on Highway 3 when three men drove by and picked him up. Defendant identified the men as R.J. (or J.R.), Shawn, and a third individual defendant did not know. Chreene then detected blood on defendant's clothing and asked him about its origin. Defendant responded that he and R.J. had a physical altercation immediately before the wreck and the three other occupants of the vehicle had fled after the car entered the ditch. Chreene knew that defendant was lying as he had personally witnessed the accident, but did not see anyone else emerge from the car. The officer then placed defendant in handcuffs for his own safety. Notably, the officer clarified that when he initially asked defendant about the circumstances of the accident, he was not under arrest at the time. The officer then placed defendant in the back of his police vehicle and radioed for backup. Officer Cortez Bridges arrived shortly thereafter. Chreene used Bridges's telephone in an attempt to call Malone and inform the victim that her vehicle was missing. Unable to reach the victim, Chreene contacted her best friend, Anna Lou Jiles, and directed her to the police station to meet with another officer who would escort her to Malone's residence to investigate the matter. Officer Bridges then left the scene and Officer Brian Keith of the DWI task force arrived. Chreene had smelled alcohol on defendant and asked Officer Keith to check him out ... Keith then had defendant exit Chreene's vehicle, talked to him briefly, put him back in the rear of the police unit, and gave him Miranda warnings. Later, Chreene learned that a Plain Dealing police officer, Rick McDonald, Jr., had escorted Jiles to the victim's home and that she was not present. With defendant still in the back of his vehicle at the location of the accident, Chreene radioed Lieutenant Tony Staton and told him to come to the scene. The lieutenant and other detectives arrived soon afterwards and transported defendant to the Plain Dealing police station to interrogate him. DWI Task Force Officer Brian Keith testified concerning his encounter with defendant, stating he arrived at the scene at approximately 11:00 p.m. pursuant to Officer Chreene's call. Chreene informed him that he had smelled alcohol on defendant's breath and Keith asked the officer if he had administered Miranda warnings. After learning that Chreene had not Mirandized defendant, Keith opened the rear door of the police unit and read defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant indicated he understood his rights and in response to the officer's inquiry concerning his consumption of alcohol, told Keith he had drunk a beer. Keith further stated the alcohol odor was very light and defendant did not appear intoxicated. Accordingly, the officer did not conduct a field sobriety test. Other officers, including Lieutenant Staton and Major Tom Myrick arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. Major Tom Myrick testified he supervised the criminal operations division of the Bossier Parish Sheriff's Department. He stated he received a phone call at his residence from Lieutenant Staton at approximately 11:00 p.m. on December 18, 2000. The officer arrived at the scene at approximately 11:45 p.m. and learned the vehicle was owned by the missing victim and defendant claimed he had been picked up in the car by other African-American males who fled from the vehicle immediately following the accident. Even though Myrick learned that Officer Keith had Mirandized defendant, he nonetheless asked defendant if he had been read his rights. Defendant confirmed to Myrick that Officer Keith had Mirandized him and he understood his rights. Myrick further testified that defendant's speech was not slurred, that he did not appear intoxicated, and that he understood the officer's inquiries. Myrick escorted defendant from the backseat of the police unit to the front of the car so the two men could talk more comfortably. There, defendant repeated a similar story to that which he had related to Chreene; telling Myrick he was in the vehicle with R.J., Shawn and a third African-American male whom he did not know and that he and R.J. had gotten into a fight after the accident and that the three men had fled into the woods. (R., vol.IV, p. 998). Defendant also told the officer he had no knowledge concerning the ownership of the vehicle. Aware defendant was likely lying about the other persons purportedly traveling in the vehicle and that Malone's house had been found empty with one of the doors open and food left cooking on the stove, Myrick told defendant they needed to go to the police station because there existed a few serious unanswered questions and that there was a possibility of a very serious offense. (R., vol.IV, p. 998). Deputy Chreene transported defendant to the police station so that Myrick, now accompanied by Detective Jeff LaCaze, could interview him. Unable to locate a waiver of rights form, Myrick re-administered Miranda warnings from memory and defendant again indicated he understood his rights and wanted to waive them. Defendant then gave an evolving series of statements. In the first statement, defendant claimed he was walking through town on Louisiana Highway 3 towards his father's home located in the Bolinger community when the vehicle came by. Inside were the driver, whom he knew as R.J. or J.R., and two passengers, one named Shawn and a third in the backseat that defendant did not know. Defendant entered the backseat on the driver's side and the men drove down Highway 157 to the intersection of Highway 160. On the way, J.R. indicated that they had just gotten the car from an old lady [and] they were taking it to a chop shop in New Orleans. (R., vol.V, p. 1003). They drove around a curve and the car veered into the ditch. Defendant was angry at J.R. for wrecking the car and nearly injuring him during the accident and the two men got into a fight, resulting in the blood on defendant's clothing. Before the deputy reached the scene, the other three men had run off into the wooded area and apparently caught a ride. Id. The second statement was similar except defendant indicated he had gotten into an argument with J.R. and exited the vehicle before the car had wrecked. The officer then told defendant he had observed an unusually large baby seat sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle ... taking up nearly two-thirds of the rear seat and it would have been impossible for him to get in the back seat with another person present. (R., vol.V, p. 1004). Defendant then admitted he had lied about the presence of the third unknown black male. Myrick advised defendant he did not believe he had told all of the truth and sought to question him further in an attempt to locate the missing victim. The officer continued that defendant's statement changed continuously, correct[ing] certain features of the story that didn't make sense. (R., vol.V, p. 1005). In a subsequent statement, defendant claimed J.R., Shawn, and two unidentified men had picked him up in a white van and he, J.R. and Shawn were dropped off near the victim's house, where they planned to steal her car. Defendant remained near the street while J.R. and Shawn approached the house. Defendant overheard the victim telling the men they were welcome to take her keys and money but asking them not to hurt her. He became upset and left the scene, walking back uptown. Minutes later, J.R. drove up in the victim's car. Shawn sat in the passenger seat while the victim sat between the two men in the front. Defendant entered the rear passenger seat and the car proceeded along Highway 157 until the men reached Highway 160 and then turned left. They had driven approximately two miles on 160 when J.R. slowed down and turned onto a dirt road. When the victim became upset and defendant realized that J.R. and Shawn were about to do ... bodily harm to her, defendant opened the rear door and exited the vehicle. (R., vol.V, p. 1006). J.R. rolled down the driver's side window and told him, [D]on't you tell anyone what we've done tonight or we'll get you. (R., vol.V, p. 1007). Several minutes later, the vehicle emerged, turned eastbound on Highway 160 and proceeded out of sight. After walking on the highway for approximately half of a mile, defendant came upon the vehicle sitting in the ditch. He checked for occupants and found the car empty before Officer Chreene pulled up and apprehended him. When reminded about the blood on his clothing, defendant stated that after the vehicle had passed him on the highway, he walked back up the dirt road in an attempt to locate the victim. Defendant claimed he wanted to check on the victim's welfare and ensure she would tell police that he had not been involved in her beating or abduction. As he stumbled down the dirt trail in the poorly lit area, someone grabbed his leg. Defendant knelt down and realized it was the victim. He cradled her in his arms, telling her how sorry he was, and asked if he could help her. However, the victim could not respond, making only gurgling noises. Defendant then walked back up the dirt road returning to the highway where he saw the wrecked vehicle. After he reached the car, Deputy Chreene arrived at the scene. Major Myrick ascertained he would get no closer to the truth at that point and asked defendant if he thought the victim was dead. Defendant responded affirmatively and indicated he could take the officer to the location of her body. Defendant then accompanied Myrick in his police car and directed him to the dirt road off of Highway 160 where the victim's body was found. Major Myrick stated at no time between when he first met with defendant at approximately 11:45 p.m. until the discovery of the victim's body at about 3:15 a.m. did defendant indicate he wished to cease answering questions or consult with an attorney. The officer further maintained defendant was cooperative throughout the interrogation and did not appear in any way intoxicated. Finally, defendant had no problem understanding the various officers and responded intelligently to their inquiries. Major Myrick testified that following the discovery of the victim's body, Detectives LaCaze and Scholz returned defendant to the police station and brought him to an interrogation room. They began to re-administer Miranda warnings, but defendant advised them he was cold and tired and wanted to go to bed. The officers complied with defendant's request and booked him with first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary before transporting him to the parish jail. Myrick interrogated defendant a final time on the morning of December 20, 2000, at approximately 9:00 a.m. The officer informed defendant that police had developed more information about the crime and would like to interview him again. Defendant agreed and after again receiving Miranda warnings, executed a waiver of rights form, which the State introduced into evidence. Defendant then gave a 2-hour videotaped statement, a transcript of which the State introduced into evidence for purposes of the motion to suppress hearing. In the videotaped statement, defendant claimed he was at a store, Carrington's, on Highway 2 when he encountered J.R., whom he had seen a gang of times in both Plain Dealing and Springhill. Exh. 2, pp. 3-5. J.R. was driving a white van with three African-American men, including Shawn, riding as passengers. J.R., whom defendant had seen at a nightclub in Springhill the previous Saturday, told him that they were going to steal cars and bring them to a chop shop in New Orleans. Defendant informed the men he need[ed] to go gamble downtown and told them to holler at [him] when [they] got down there. Id., pp. 8-9. After stopping at the Dollar Store to purchase a jacket, defendant went to Kenny's bar, where he shot dice. Defendant consumed a single beer at the establishment and won approximately 60 dollars rolling dice, doubling the money he had with him when he entered the saloon. Defendant left Kenny's and went to Jerry's where he encountered his sister and her girlfriend. One of the men he had gambled with earlier arrived at the scene and defendant agreed to buy him a beer so the two returned to Kenny's bar. Defendant exited the bar shortly thereafter and walked towards the nearby gambling shack. On the way, defendant encountered the white van again with the same four occupants. He entered the vehicle and the men proceeded to the victim's house where defendant, J.R., and Shawn exited and the two remaining men drove off in the van. Defendant ran up to the carport and watched as J.R. and Shawn approached the house, encountered the victim, and demanded her car keys. Defendant maintained he was not familiar with the house and had never seen the victim beforehand. The victim told J.R. and Shawn to take anything you want while defendant urged Shawn to leave the scene. Id., pp. 34-35. Defendant grabbed Shawn who was standing over the victim who had either been pushed or had fallen to the floor near her kitchen. Frustrated that his attempts to prevent harm to the victim had proven futile, defendant exited the house alone. Defendant was walking towards Highway 2 when J.R. and Shawn pulled up with the victim sandwiched between the two men in the front of her vehicle. Defendant then entered the vehicle. As J.R. drove, the victim asked the men to let her go, but they proceeded to the dirt road off of Highway 160. As the car eased down the dirt road, the victim began to struggle and Shawn struck her twice. Alarmed, defendant jumped out of the vehicle and J.R. rolled down the window and said, Bitch, you tell anybody I swear I kill you. I'll kill somebody in your family.... Id., pp. 49-50. Defendant ran back to the highway and tried in vain to flag down a passing vehicle. Defendant had walked about 25 feet down the highway when J.R. and Shawn emerged from the dirt road in the victim's car and drove off. Defendant then returned down the trail on foot to see if the men had left the victim there. Defendant actually tripped over the victim in the poorly lit area and she grabbed at his feet. The victim was gagging and unable to talk and defendant held her in his arms until she stopped moving. He then laid the victim back on the ground and returned to the highway. After a truck had passed him, he noticed the victim's vehicle in the ditch with its emergency lights flashing. Two cars stopped at the scene and defendant told their occupants that he was okay, but asked that they call the police. A truck then stopped at the scene of the accident and Officer Chreene drove up in his police unit shortly thereafter. Defendant described J.R. as about six feet tall with a medium build and a mini fro. He normally wore Dickies brand clothing and was associated with the Crips gang. Defendant described Shawn as approximately six feet two inches tall with a slightly smaller build than defendant. He thought both men were in their mid-twenties and had met them at a nightclub located in the back of a store in Springhill. Defendant further claimed he was under the impression J.R. and Shawn would release the victim until the men turned onto the dirt road. He also maintained he never sat in the front of the vehicle and that accordingly his fingerprints would not be found there. Major Myrick then stated while he believed defendant had told 95% of the story, several portions of his statement appeared implausible. Specifically, the officer informed defendant that: (1) Deputy Chreene had personally observed the wreck as it occurred and did not see any other individuals exit the vehicle; (2) there existed no footprints on the dirt trail from the highway leading to victim's body; (3) if the perpetrators' intent was to steal a car to sell for its parts, they would not go to an unknown residence to procure a five  or six-year-old four-door Oldsmobile but would rather jack folks at red lights in nice cars; and (4) blood patterns on defendant's clothing appeared to be spatter or spray, which did not coincide with his story of holding the victim in his arms as she died. When defendant maintained he had told the truth and requested an attorney, the interview concluded. The officer then testified that as evidenced by his demeanor in the videotape, defendant appeared to understand his rights before he waived them and was not intoxicated at the time. [14] The officer also maintained defendant had not requested an attorney at any point before the conclusion of the interview. On cross-examination, the officer stated defendant was not aware that the final interview had been videotaped. Detective Jeff LaCaze testified he was present during defendant's first (unrecorded) interview at the Plain Dealing police station and observed Officer Myrick provide Miranda warnings. LaCaze continued that defendant was cooperative, appeared to understand his rights, and did not appear intoxicated when he waived his rights and gave his evolving series of statements about the offense in response to the officers' inquiries. Following the discovery of the victim's body, LaCaze and Deputy Scholz attempted to interview defendant again at the police station at approximately 4:00 a.m. The officers gave defendant a cigarette and began to read him Miranda rights when defendant stated he was tired and wanted to go to bed. The officers immediately ceased their interrogation and booked defendant into jail. In a lengthy oral ruling, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: [T]he first complaint was that he was arrested based on less than sufficient information to establish probable cause and that the police had no other facts or information to support probable cause than the statements obtained from defendant. That's not supported by the evidence presented. The evidence indicates that the officers had information concerning the disappearance of Ms. Malone. They had sent someone to her house and that the house  she was not there, the door was open; that the stove was cooking  or that food was cooking on the stove. And that the defendant was in possession of her automobile. And the story that he gave was inconsistent with those facts. Certainly that's more than his statement to support their suspicion. And I believe they had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest without warrant. Officer Chreene's investigation, he began investigating what he saw to be a reckless operation or failure to maintain control of a vehicle. During that, he noticed what appeared to be blood; questioned the defendant about that blood. The fact that he saw blood on him doesn't mean the defendant had in fact committed a crime. There was nothing to show that Officer Chreene was aware of any crime having been committed. He knew this defendant had worked for the lady, who he thought the car belonged to, and it's possible that she could have loaned him the vehicle. It was only upon his determination that Mr. Manning's story was inconsistent with  was not that Ms. Malone had loaned him the automobile, but the story that he gave the officer that he became suspicious. He noticed the blood on him. At that time he placed him in handcuffs, placed him in the back of the car and said that the questioning of Mr. Manning ceased.... And based upon that information probable cause was made to determine that he could be arrested without warrant. [T]he next allegation is that he was transported... to the Bossier Sheriff's Office where he was questioned about the homicide in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney and the rule established in Edwards v. Arizona . That is not supported by the record. He was advised of his rights.... [T]here is no evidence  absolutely none that the defendant did not understand his Miranda rights. That he ever requested an attorney or requested anything that was not given to him by the officers. The evidence is contrary to that. The evidence shows that the officers read him his rights on more than one (1) occasion. That when he told them that he was tired and hungry and cold and didn't want to talk with them any more, they immediately ceased questioning him. And it was some thirty (30) hours later when that interrogation continued. The defendant, in their [sic] motion, admit that he was given his Miranda warnings, but they say that for some reason, the defendant's statement should be suppressed because he was questioned further without counsel. And the only problem with that is that the defendant never requested counsel. There is absolutely no evidence supporting any request for counsel made by the defendant and the Motion to Suppress is clearly without merit. (R., vol.V, pp. 1058-61). Defendant first contends the trial court erred when it admitted defendant's initial statement to Officer Chreene at the scene of the accident in which he claimed he had been picked up in the victim's vehicle by J.R., Shawn, and a third unknown man because the officer failed to provide Miranda warnings before asking about the circumstances of the mishap and how he had come into possession of the car. The obligation to provide Miranda warnings attaches only when a person is questioned by law enforcement after he has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; State v. Payne, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 934. Custody is decided by two distinct inquiries: an objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation to determine whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of the degree associated with formal arrest; and, second, an evaluation of how a reasonable person in the position of the interviewee would gauge the breadth of his freedom of action. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994), ( citing California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275(1983)( per curiam ), Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714(1977)( per curiam )). See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383(1995). As such, Miranda warnings are not required when officers conduct preliminary, non-custodial, on-the-scene questioning to determine whether a crime has been committed, unless the accused is subjected to arrest or a significant restraint short of formal arrest. State v. Davis, 448 So.2d 645, 651-652 (La.1984); State v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 264, 266 (La.1983); State v. Thompson, 399 So.2d 1161, 1165-1167 (La.1981), dissent at 400 So.2d 1080; State v. Menne, 380 So.2d 14, 17 (La.1980), cert. denied sub nom Louisiana v. Menne, 449 U.S. 833, 101 S.Ct. 104, 66 L.Ed.2d 39(1980); State v. Hodges, 349 So.2d 250, 255-257 (La.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1074, 98 S.Ct. 1262, 55 L.Ed.2d 779 (1978); State v. Brown, 340 So.2d 1306, 1308 (La.1976); State v. Watkins, 526 So.2d 357, 359-360 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). Thus an individual's responses to on-the-scene and non-custodial questioning, particularly when carried out in public, are admissible without Miranda warnings. See State v. Davis, supra (Question, Who shot the deer? directed to a group of hunters did not point the finger of suspicion at any one person, even though wildlife agent knew that adult female deer had been taken and that citizens were holding the culprits, and therefore did not require Miranda warnings); State v. Thompson, supra (question of how he came by the blood spots on his shirt, asked by officer of man in motel lobby identified as perpetrator of assault and who agreed to talk with the officer, was to learn if crime had occurred and therefore occurred in a pre-custodial setting which did not require Miranda warnings); State v. Mitchell, supra (question asked by an Arkansas deputy after handcuffing a drunken Monroe driver for traffic offenses and noticing dried blood on his neck, What happened? did not amount to custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes; defendant's reply, My wife shot me, admissible without Miranda under time pressure of finding injured wife). Similarly, although a motorist stopped for a traffic violation or an individual detained in a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion has had his freedom of movement curtailed in a significant way, [15] until an arrest actually occurs, these Fourth Amendment seizures do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) (The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda. ). In this case, Officer Chreene testified he did not suspect defendant had committed a crime when he arrived at the scene. While the officer stated he thought the victim owned the vehicle, he also maintained he had observed defendant working in her yard and accordingly that she may have loaned him her car. In this situation, defendant fails to show the trial court erred when it determined the relevant evidence demonstrated defendant was not in custody at the time he made his initial statement concerning the circumstances of the accident and thus found it admissible without Miranda warnings. This claim lacks merit. Defendant further contends the trial court erred when it admitted his custodial statements because he did not execute a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. Specifically, he claims his alcohol consumption on the night of the offense coupled with his low IQ, rendered his waiver involuntary. In support, defendant points to his request,  When I'm gonna be able to get a lawyer and talk to him? at the conclusion of his videotaped interview to suggest he did not know that he could invoke his right to an attorney before answering the officers' questions about the crime. Intoxication may render a confession involuntary if it negates a defendant's comprehension and renders him unconscious of the consequences of what he is saying; whether intoxication exists and to a degree sufficient to vitiate voluntariness are questions of fact. State v. Bourque, 622 So.2d 198, 222 (La.1993); State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118, 126 (La.1983); Vaccaro, 411 So.2d at 425; State v. Robinson, 384 So.2d 332, 335 (La.1980). However, the mere fact of drug or alcohol intoxication is insufficient standing alone to render a confession involuntary. See State v. Davis, 92-1623 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 1012, 1023-1024, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 975, 115 S.Ct. 450, 130 L.Ed.2d 359 (1994)(confession voluntary although defendant had smoked three or four cocaine rocks the night before his 11 p.m. statement, as well as consumed several beers the day he confessed). In addition, low intellect, moderate mental retardation or diminished mental capacity does not per se and invariably vitiate capacity to make a free and voluntary statement or a knowing and intelligent Miranda waiver. State v. Brooks, 93-3331 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 366, 373-375; State v. Benoit, 440 So.2d 129, 131 (La.1983); State v. Lindsey, 404 So.2d 466, 472 (La.1981), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1004, 104 S.Ct. 515, 78 L.Ed.2d 702 (1983). Voluntariness is determined on a case by case basis, under a totality of the circumstances standard. Brooks, 648 So.2d at 372; Benoit, 440 So.2d at 131. In the present case, defendant fails to show he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver. Regarding the alleged intoxication, Officer Keith testified defendant claimed he had consumed only a single beer before the accident. Keith further stated defendant did not appear to be under the influence of any intoxicating substance when he arrived at the scene and accordingly he did not conduct a field sobriety test. That being the case, the trial court did not err when it determined the consumption of alcohol did not undermine the knowing and intelligent waiver of defendant's rights. With regard to defendant's claim concerning his diminished mental capacity, all of the interrogating officers testified defendant appeared to understand his rights and responded appropriately to their questions. Notably, while the IQ tests administered to defendant showed he possessed below average intelligence, the results did not suggest he was profoundly retarded and thus incapable of understanding his rights. Cf., State v. Anderson, 379 So.2d 735, 736 (La.1980) (fact that the defendant was an illiterate, unemployed 17-year-old with the mental age of 8 and an IQ of between 50 and 69, coupled with ambivalent police testimony about whether he ever understood the rights they attempted to explain to him, supported a conclusion he was incapable of understanding his rights or the ramifications of foregoing them; hence, there was no knowing, intelligent waiver). As Major Myrick noted, defendant's statement about the crime continually evolved as he learned the officers possessed evidence which contradicted various aspects of his exculpatory version of the victim's murder. Moreover, defendant's request for an attorney after his final videotaped statement did not demonstrate he did not understand he could request a lawyer earlier. Rather, it is indicative that upon learning the investigating officers did not believe his story, defendant realized it would be prudent to pursue a different strategy to mitigate his culpability. Defendant fails to show the trial court erred when it concluded he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights. See State v. Green, 94-0886 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, 278-84 (mildly retarded defendant's waiver of rights was knowing and intelligent, even though psychologist testified defendant was unable to comprehend his rights; psychologist also testified defendant was educable and could be made to understand rights, police officers testified defendant understood as well as defendant's criminal history indicated he understood Miranda warnings). Finally, defendant claims the trial court should have suppressed his videotaped statement because he was not arraigned and appointed counsel promptly in compliance with LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 230.1(A). Generally, LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 230.1(A) requires the period between arrest and arraignment not exceed 72 hours. In this case, the delay did not exceed the statutory maximum and thus no violation occurred. Notwithstanding, even assuming the delay exceeded the time limitations provided, it would have no bearing on defendant's motion to suppress. The remedy for violation of LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 230.1 is pre-trial release, see LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 230.1(C), and has no effect whatsoever upon the validity of the proceedings thereafter.... LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 230.1(D); State v. Tauzier, 397 So.2d 494, 505 (La.1981); cf. LA.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 701(B)(2) (remedy for violation of speedy trial statute is pre-trial release, not reversal of conviction); State v. Johnson, 622 So.2d 845, 848 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993) (same). This claim lacks merit. Defendant shows no basis for the suppression of his statements or any derivative evidence. This argument lacks merit.