Opinion ID: 2145408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Morgan's Confession Was Invalidly Obtained.

Text: Morgan argues that his confession was obtained in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under the Federal Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. Additionally, he argues that the confession was coerced, in violation of due process. For both reasons, he asserts that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress his confession and the evidentiary fruits thereof. Because Morgan raises constitutional objections, our scope of review is de novo. State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Iowa 1995). The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that constitutional rights were knowingly waived and that statements of an inculpatory nature were voluntarily given. See State v. Alspach, 524 N.W.2d 665, 667 (Iowa 1994). We find the following facts after our de novo review of the record. On August 17, 1994, Morgan drove to the Keokuk airport. He was then flown to Waterloo and driven to Cedar Falls for purposes of taking a polygraph examination. Both the trip and the polygraph examination had been consented to by Morgan before leaving Keokuk. Special agent Robert Ward of the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and deputy sheriff Jack Dillon accompanied Morgan. Ward, Dillon, and Morgan arrived in Cedar Falls at approximately 2:30 p.m. The polygraph examination was to take place at the State Patrol Office in Cedar Falls. When Morgan arrived at the State Patrol Office, he was directed to a restaurant where he could obtain something to eat prior to the examination. About forty-five minutes later, Special Agent Jeff Jacobson with the DCI requested Morgan to come inside the State Patrol Office for purposes of proceeding with the polygraph examination. Morgan went inside that office and entered a room reserved for polygraph examinations. Ward and Dillon observed from another room. Morgan signed a waiver-of-rights form pertaining to both the polygraph examination and any questioning incident thereto. Jacobson then began to ask him pretest questions about his physical and mental health and other aspects of his background. During this time, Morgan took a brief cigarette break. At 4:18 p.m. the pretest questions were completed. At this time, Morgan appeared to be in a highly agitated state. At 5:35 p.m., when the polygraph examination was about to begin, Morgan left the office for another cigarette break. Jacobson told Ward and Dillon that he was uncertain that he could get an accurate reading because of Morgan's agitated state. The agents discussed this issue for about ten minutes while Morgan waited outside. Jacobson proceeded outside where Morgan told him he was distrustful of the polygraph examination and mentioned that he was thinking of seeking an attorney's advice. Jacobson testified at the suppression hearing that he told Morgan that he could use a phone to contact an attorney if he wished. Jacobson then consulted with Ward and Dillon about Morgan's possible desire to speak with an attorney. Agent Ward attempted to reassure Morgan concerning the polygraph examination. Morgan again expressed distrust for machinery such as the polygraph equipment and expressed concerns that he would be given the third degree, with bright lights. During this conversation, Morgan did not mention a lawyer. Morgan and Ward returned to the Patrol Office where Morgan stated let's get it over with. Once inside, Morgan refused to take the polygraph examination. Faced with this development, the investigators present in Cedar Falls spoke by phone with their superior, who indicated that they should attempt to interrogate Morgan concerning the events of August 12 and 13. Agent Jacobson told Morgan that he had a few more questions for him. Questioning about Anna Marie Emry's disappearance commenced at 6:15 p.m. Jacobson offered several hypotheticals to Morgan. He asked Morgan what would happen if a global positioning satellite showed his truck in the vicinity of Brighton, Iowa, later than the times he gave investigators. Jacobson asked what Morgan would say if a neighbor had seen him in Robert Emry's backyard during the evening in question. He also asked Morgan if he had sexually assaulted Anna Marie because his wife was not sexually satisfying him. During this time, Morgan stated I know I'm under arrest, which was not contradicted by the officers. Morgan also mentioned consulting with an attorney. The agents testified that Morgan said he might need an attorney. At trial Morgan testified that he had stated: I think I need an attorney. At 6:34 p.m. Morgan asked for a Mountain Dew and an ashtray, which were provided to him. At 6:40 p.m. he confessed to taking Anna Marie from her uncle's home, sexually assaulting her, and killing her. A. Miranda issues. Morgan argues that his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were violated in several respects. The State responds with alternative contentions. First, it contends that Morgan was not in custody. Thus, Miranda does not apply. Second, the State urges that if Miranda did apply, Morgan received the benefits of those rights. For purposes of discussion, we assume Morgan was in custody. 1. Adequacy of Miranda waiver contained in polygraph consent form. Morgan argues that the waiver form he executed incident to taking the polygraph examination inadequately informed him of his Miranda rights with respect to his subsequent general interrogation. We set out the relevant language in the margin. [1] According to Morgan, the waiver form, by its language, applied to the polygraph examination alone. Morgan argues that after he refused to submit to the polygraph examination a new set of warnings was necessary in order to permit further questioning of him. The relevant rule is found in Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42, 47, 103 S.Ct. 394, 396, 74 L.Ed.2d 214, 218-19 (1982). In Wyrick, the United States Supreme Court held that a pretest waiver of Miranda rights is effective for posttest interrogation unless the circumstances changed so seriously that [the subject's] answers were no longer voluntary or unless [the subject] no longer was making a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of his rights. 459 U.S. at 47, 103 S.Ct. at 396, 74 L.Ed.2d at 218. We conclude that it was not necessary to give Morgan a fresh set of Miranda warnings after he refused to take the polygraph examination. The circumstances had not changed significantly so as to trigger Miranda anew. Less than three hours had passed between Morgan's signing of the Miranda waiver and his refusal to take the test. See State v. Jump, 269 N.W.2d 417, 424 (Iowa 1978) (interview after test not so remote in time as to require additional warning). The waiver form sufficiently explained Morgan's rights, and those rights were still fresh in his mind. Although the waiver-of-rights form had some language specific to the polygraph examination, it also advised Morgan of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. 2. Invocation of the right to silence. Morgan argues that he invoked his right to remain silent and that this invocation was not scrupulously honored as required by Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 101-04, 96 S.Ct. 321, 325-26, 46 L.Ed.2d 313, 319-22 (1975). He asserts that his statement that he did not want to take a polygraph examination was an invocation of his right to halt any subsequent interrogation. We conclude that Morgan's refusal to take a polygraph examination did not communicate a desire to cut off all questioning. See United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir.1995) (clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent is necessary); Stumes v. Solem, 752 F.2d 317, 320 (8th Cir.1985) (refusal to take polygraph examination is not an invocation of the right to silence); State v. Whitsel, 339 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Iowa 1983) (discussion of potential need for an attorney not an invocation of right to silence). As a result, the officers were not precluded from initiating the interrogation that followed. Johnson, 56 F.3d at 955; Whitsel, 339 N.W.2d at 152. 3. Invocation of the right to counsel. Morgan claims that his statement I think I need an attorney constituted an invocation of the right to counsel. The State responds that any request for counsel was equivocal and, therefore, ineffective. In Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362, 373 (1994), the Supreme Court held that maybe I should talk to a lawyer constitutes an ineffective invocation of the right to counsel. Similarly, in State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 430 (Iowa 1982), this court concluded that an inquiry regarding the need or advisability of speaking with an attorney is not an invocation of the right to counsel. Morgan contends that the statement indicating I think I need an attorney, indicated that his mind was already made up on the matter and is thus sufficient to halt further interrogation. In denying Morgan's motion to suppress, however, the trial court found that he had in fact said that he might need a lawyer as testified by the officers. The court found that such a statement was analogous to the statement found in Davis to be insufficient to invoke a right to counsel. We agree. Although review on this constitutional issue is de novo, weight will be given to the trial court's findings of fact, as in other de novo appeals, because that court had an opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses. We find that Morgan did not successfully invoke his right to counsel. B. The voluntariness issue. Morgan argues that his confession was obtained involuntarily, in violation of his due process rights. The applicable considerations are found in State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328-29 (Iowa 1992): The defendant's knowledge and waiver of his Miranda rights, the defendant's age, experience, prior record, level of education and intelligence, the length of time the defendant is detained and interrogated, whether physical punishment is used, including the deprivation of food or sleep, the defendant's ability to understand the questions, the defendant's physical and emotional condition and his reactions to the interrogation, whether any deceit or improper promises were used in gaining the admissions, and any mental weakness the defendant may possess. In reviewing these factors, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Morgan relies on the following circumstances: (1) he had little prior experience with law enforcement, (2) he was far from home and was nervous about flying, (3) the officers knew Jacobson made him nervous, (4) they ignored his invocations of silence and counsel, (5) the officers knew of his nervous condition and prior medication, and (6) the global positioning satellite hypothetical offered by agent Jacobson was improper. The State responds that Morgan came to Cedar Falls voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights. It urges that Morgan, a relatively bright high school graduate, had the sophistication to understand his situation and was familiar with the rudimentary workings of the criminal justice system, including his choice whether to be represented by an attorney. Although he had previously received prescription medication for a nervous condition, he had not required that medication for two years. Morgan was in no way physically abused. He was offered food, drink, and frequent cigarette breaks when he requested them. We conclude that Morgan has failed to establish that his confession was the product of undue police coercion that overpowered his will. He came to Cedar Falls voluntarily and was treated with respect while there. He was aware of his rights and the consequences of waiving those rights. At one time, he was offered a chance to consult with a lawyer and failed to follow up on that opportunity. Taken as a whole, the interrogation was not so offensive to a civilized system of justice that [it] must be condemned. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163, 107 S.Ct. 515, 519, 93 L.Ed.2d 473, 481 (1986) (quoting Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109, 106 S.Ct. 445, 449, 88 L.Ed.2d 405, 410 (1985)). As a final challenge to the confession evidence, Morgan asks this court to impose, under the due process clause of the Iowa Constitution, a requirement that police must ask clarifying questions when faced with an equivocal request to consult with counsel and that suspect interrogations must, where feasible, be recorded. Requiring law enforcement personnel to record interrogations or to ask such clarifying questions are issues that may be argued both pro and con as matters of public policy. We are confident, however, that such procedures are in no way mandated by any provision in the Iowa Constitution. We reject Morgan's contention that they are.