Opinion ID: 2051995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Defendant's Statement To His Father Regarding the Location Of the Murder Weapon.

Text: The defendant maintains that the evidence of the location of the murder weapon should be suppressed because the defendant's father was acting as an agent of the police when he initiated further interrogation of the defendant after the defendant had invoked his right to counsel. Assuming arguendo that the defendant's father was acting as an agent of the police when he ascertained the location of the murder weapon, we nevertheless find no violation of the defendant's Miranda rights. Under the Edwards rule, the defendant's invocation of his right to counsel during his questioning by Officer Edge barred further interrogation by the authorities or their agents until counsel was made available to the defendant, unless the defendant himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85. The defendant did initiate further communication with the police when he made his statement to Officer Edge; therefore, we must determine whether the defendant had validly waived his right to counsel when he spoke with his father. Turner, 136 Wis. 2d at 347. An accused waives the right to counsel when there is a voluntary, `knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' Id., citing Edwards, 451 U.S. at 482. An important factor in the knowing and intelligent analysis deals with the question of whether the defendant did in fact reopen the dialogue with police subsequent to the initial invocation of the right to counsel. Turner, 136 Wis. 2d at 348; see Edwards, 451 U.S. at 486 n. 9. [14] We conclude, on the basis of the record before us, that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The defendant was given his Miranda warnings, in both written and oral form. The defendant verbally acknowledged that he understood his rights. The defendant also signed a waiver form which indicated that he understood his constitutional rights. The defendant spoke to his attorney on two occasions. Finally, the defendant, after invocation of his right to counsel, initiated further communication with the police. Therefore, we hold that the defendant was properly subject to further interrogation under the Edwards rule and that the evidence of the location of the murder weapon was properly admitted.