Opinion ID: 2570814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attorney Requests

Text: This argument differs from the typical issue arising from the application of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, reh. denied 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1966), in that Appleby was arrested in another state on unrelated charges, and the arresting officer, Detective Jewiss, had no intention of interrogating Appleby; typically a Miranda issue arises when there is custodial interrogation related to the crime on which the arrest was based. Under the circumstances of this case, the State argues Appleby's questions about whether he would be allowed to talk to an attorney were, at most, an invocation of Sixth Amendment rights related to the Connecticut charges. Appleby argues that he was asserting his Fifth Amendment rights and the assertion applied to both cases. To understand these arguments, a more detailed discussion of the interaction is necessary. When Appleby was arrested in Connecticut, he was arrested on the Connecticut charges only, even though the arrest was timed to occur when Kansas detectives were in Connecticut and the arrest may not have occurred if Kansas law enforcement had not contacted the Connecticut State Police Department to request assistance in investigating Appleby. But this involvement was behind the scene; the Kansas detectives did not directly participate when Detective Jewiss took Appleby into custody at his home, and Appleby was not aware of their presence until after he had asked the Connecticut detectives the four questions about whether he could talk to an attorney. Appleby did ask Detective Jewiss why there were so many officers at his house, and the detective explained a search warrant was being executed and the officers were going to search the home. Appleby questioned what the search was about, and Jewiss replied that he wasn't going to talk to him any further about the case; that somebody else would talk to him. During the approximately 3-mile drive to the station, Detective Jewiss did not ask Appleby any questions, but Appleby volunteered information about his use of the alias of Teddy Hoover. When Detective Jewiss and Appleby arrived at the station, Detective Jewiss began the routine book-in process on the Connecticut arrest warrant. At this point, before Appleby had been Mirandized, Appleby asked if he was going to have the opportunity to talk to an attorney. Detective Jewiss replied absolutely. Detective Jewiss testified he understood this to be a question regarding procedure, not an invocation of the right. While testifying at the suppression hearing, Detective Jewiss was asked if he was questioning Appleby at this point in time. He answered: Not at all. I even informed him that I wouldn't be questioning him, and that I wouldn't talk to him about either of these cases. After Appleby asked about an attorney, he was read a notice of rights form that listed the three Connecticut charges  risk of injury to a minor, disorderly conduct, and public indecency. The form also advised of Miranda rights and stated in part: You may consult with an attorney before being questioned; you may have an attorney present during questioning, and you cannot be questioned without your consent. Appleby signed the notice of rights form, which was an acknowledgment, not a waiver of rights. Soon after that exchange, another Connecticut detective advised Appleby of the search warrant that authorized the officer to swab the inside of Appleby's mouth in order to obtain a DNA sample. Detective Jewiss testified that Appleby asked if he had the right to say no and then asked if he could speak to an attorney about his right to refuse the testing. According to Detective Jewiss, the detectives advised Appleby he could not talk to an attorney at that point regarding a search that had been authorized by a judge. Following the DNA swabbing, Detective Jewiss continued with the book-in process on the Connecticut charges. Appleby was fingerprinted and photographed, the property on his person was inventoried, and a personal information data sheet was completed. During that process, Appleby asked two more times whether he would have an opportunity to talk to an attorney. At the suppression hearing, Detective Jewiss repeatedly testified that he understood Appleby to be asking about our procedure as in ... will he have the opportunity to talk to an attorney. According to Detective Jewiss, the question was never in the context of, I don't want to talk to you or I don't want to talk to anybody without an attorney here. Detective Jewiss testified that during the book-in process he asked Appleby his name, date and place of birth, residence, and similar book-in questions. The only other question he asked came about 30 minutes after they arrived at the police station when Detective Jewiss asked Appleby if he wanted to talk to some people about an unrelated matter. Appleby said he would. Detective Jewiss was asked if Appleby brought up the word attorney at that time, and he replied, No, he didn't. Detective Jewiss was also asked why he did not give Appleby the opportunity to speak to an attorney before sending him upstairs to be interrogated by the Kansas detectives. Detective Jewiss, who had repeatedly stated that he had understood Appleby to be asking about procedure and had explained that a defendant would typically be allowed to contact an attorney only after the book-in process was complete, testified that [t]here was still some processing that I had to continue with. When Detective Jewiss transferred Appleby to the Kansas detectives, he reported that Appleby had not invoked his right to counsel, but he has asked something about an attorney when the [DNA] search warrant was being conducted. Detective Jewiss did not tell the Kansas detectives about the other instances when Appleby asked whether he would be able to talk to an attorney. After Detective Jewiss left, the two Kansas detectives asked Appleby if he wanted to answer some questions about the murder of A.K. He said he wanted to talk to them, and the detectives then told him he would be read his Miranda rights again since he was being interviewed on a different charge from what he was arrested. After being read his rights, Appleby said he understood them and was willing to answer some questions. He was questioned for approximately 2 and 1/2 hours, the final 20 minutes on videotape. At no point during the questioning by the Kansas detectives did Appleby indicate he wished to speak to or have the assistance of an attorney.