Opinion ID: 1836255
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: night in jail

Text: ¶ 46 Ward's second interview ended at approximately 5:20 p.m. Wood and Schaepe explained to Ward that she would be spending the night in jail because she had implicated herself in the death of her nephew. They also told Ward the following: [Schaepe]: And what we're gonna do also just so you know is your phone calls are gonna be restricted at this time. So I'm gonna tell them that. And then tomorrow morning we'll assess that and [] see if we can lift that or not. But right now we're in the process of investigating and we're gonna be searching your house. And we don't want any interference with that type of activity so we are restricting your phone calls until tomorrow and then we'll reassess. Okay? [Ward]: And that means not making any phone calls? [Schaepe]: Right. Ward argues that because she could not make any phone calls, she was held incommunicado and denied her right to counsel. ¶ 47 In response, the State notes that at approximately 7:00 p.m., Schaepe told the jailer to tell Ward that she could call a lawyer if she wanted. Ward argues that there is no evidence in the record to support this. However, the circuit court made the following finding of fact: [O]fficer Schaepe told the jailer about 7 o'clock on the evening of December 1st that of course if [Ward] wanted to call an attorney she could call an attorney, and the evidence here on record is that that information was communicated to her. So on the night of December 1st, [Ward] was reminded that she could call an attorney.... ¶ 48 Ward argues that this finding is clearly erroneous because there is no evidence that Ward was informed by the jailer that she could call an attorney. We disagree. On the morning of December 2, at the start of the third interview, Ward and Schaepe had the following exchange: [Schaepe]: The only restrictions that you've had up until this point is calling out to make a personal phone call. Um if you want an attorney you can call an attorney and that's what it says there. At any time you can call an attorney. And that's why the jailer came to you yesterday as well and said that um you don't have any you can't have any personal phone calls out but you can have a phone call to your attorney if you'd like. That's what he told you last night too. [Ward]: And I didn't have one. And I didn't know who to call. And usually they're gone by that time. When Schaepe recalled to Ward that the jailer had told her that she could call an attorney if she wanted, Ward did not deny that this was true, and her statements imply that the jailer did tell her she could make a call to a lawyer. Therefore, the circuit court's finding does not go against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence; i.e., it is not clearly erroneous. Sykes, 279 Wis.2d 742, ¶ 21 n. 7, 695 N.W.2d 277. ¶ 49 Satisfied with the circuit court's findings of fact, we note that the concept of incommunicado detention, to which Ward argues she was subject, may contemplate both that visitors, such as family members and/or counsel, are prevented from seeing or contacting the suspect, and that the suspect is prohibited from communicating with individuals other than the police. See, e.g., Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 745, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966) (noting that a defendant was held incommunicado where there was an instruction not to permit anyone access to Davis and not to allow him to communicate with others); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 563, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) [6] (noting incommunicado status where defendant's family members and lawyer were not permitted to visit him and he asked to make a phone call but was not allowed to do so). ¶ 50 However, in Burbine, which provided guidance on the application of Miranda, the United States Supreme Court explained that, where the dictates of Miranda are otherwise followed, the only impermissible aspect of incommunicado questioning is that which prevents a suspect from speaking with those to whom he or she has a constitutional right to speak. [7] Burbine, 475 U.S. at 433 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (noting that denying visitors the right to contact an individual in custody who has been given the Miranda warnings will not require suppression because the Miranda decision itself embodies a carefully crafted balance designed to fully protect both the defendant's and society's interests, and `the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present' only `[i]f the individual states that he wants an attorney') (quoting Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 104 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (emphasis in Burbine )). That is, preventing others from contacting the suspect has no impact on the suspect's ability to waive his or her rights or on his or her choice to speak voluntarily with the police. Id. at 422, 106 S.Ct. 1135. ¶ 51 The Burbine court reasoned that [e]vents occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him surely can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right. Id. That is, although the accused has a Fifth Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination, his or her decision to waive that right and to speak voluntarily with the police cannot be affected by events of which he or she has no knowledge. Id. Therefore, if the suspect is unaware that the police have prevented someone from making contact, this fact has no bearing on the suspect's waiver of rights or the voluntariness of his or her statements. Once Miranda has been followed, full comprehension of the rights to remain silent and request a [lawyer] are sufficient to dispel whatever coercion is inherent in the interrogation process. Id. at 427, 106 S.Ct. 1135. ¶ 52 Based on these principles and the circuit court's findings, we conclude that Ward is correct in asserting that she was held in a constitutionally impermissible status during the hour and 40 minutes that she could not contact a lawyer, if she had asked to do so. However, preventing others from contacting Ward cannot have affected her waiver of rights or the voluntariness of her statements, because she was not aware that anyone was trying to contact her. Id. at 422, 106 S.Ct. 1135. Furthermore, as soon as Ward was informed by the jailer that she could contact a lawyer, her constitutionally impaired status ceased and she was once again free to speak with a lawyer if she requested to do so. Id. at 433 n. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1135. And finally, this is not a case where Ward was held by the police for an extended period of time. She agreed to accompany the police to the station in the afternoon of the day that her nephew died; she was kept overnight; and she was charged the next day. ¶ 53 However, even though Ward was allowed to call a lawyer, she made no attempt to do so at any time. Even assuming that Ward would have attempted to contact an attorney between 5:20 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on December 1, the remedy for her brief deprivation of the right to contact a lawyer would be suppression of any incriminating statements that she made during that time. See Darwin v. Connecticut, 391 U.S. 346, 349, 88 S.Ct. 1488, 20 L.Ed.2d 630 (1968) (per curiam) (holding that prolonged incommunicado interrogation rendered confession made during that period involuntary and inadmissible); see also Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 514, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963) (holding that incommunicado detention rendered confession made during that period involuntary). However, Ward made no statements, much less incriminating statements, during the hour and 40 minutes that she may have been unable to contact an attorney had she so desired. ¶ 54 We acknowledge that Darwin and Haynes did not expressly address the question of whether a period of impermissible detention could nevertheless result in the suppression of incriminating statements obtained subsequent to that detention. However, even if it could, Ward's conduct at the third interview in this case (which we discuss below), in personally requesting to speak with the officers, demonstrating a clear willingness to talk once the interview began, and subsequently waiving her rights to silence and to counsel, demonstrate that, under the totality of the circumstances, her brief period of impermissible detention did not affect the voluntariness of statements she made subsequent to that detention. That is, because it was for such a brief period of time, it did not rise to a level of coercion such that statements that she made the next day should have been suppressed. ¶ 55 In his dissent, Justice Crooks argues, both expressly and impliedly, that we should reject the United States Supreme Court's holding in Burbine and conclude that the police conduct here rendered both Ward's waiver invalid and her subsequent statements involuntary. Justice Crooks' dissent, ¶¶ 80, 85, 101 & n. 15. In response, we note that in State v. Hanson, which is not a recent case and which demonstrates that many of the arguments presented by Justice Crooks are not new, six justices took the opportunity to expressly adopt the holding in Burbine. Hanson, 136 Wis.2d at 213, 401 N.W.2d 771. The Hanson court's logic in doing so applies with equal force today: We do not believe that the suspect's knowledge of the location of a particular counsel can affect the intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights as described in Miranda warnings. Since the knowledge of the location of counsel adds no constitutional rights, does not alter the facts of the case as the suspect knows them, and does not give rise to any coercive influence by the police, such knowledge is not relevant to the suspect's voluntary decision to waive his rights. Although a suspect who was ready to waive his rights might change his mind when told an attorney was waiting to see him, the critical factor would be the convenience of seeing the attorney, not the intelligent perceived need for legal counsel. Since the convenience of the defendant is not constitutionally protected, the location of a particular attorney is not constitutionally required information. If this information were required, distinctions between suspects would unfairly develop depending on whether third persons were able to engage the services of an attorney. A new area of law would develop regarding actions of police in particular fact situations, i.e., was the attorney in the building, was the attorney on the telephone, was the attorney on his way to the building, was the attorney not immediately available but would be by a definite time, would a substitute attorney satisfy the requirement. Another line of cases could develop around who requested such representation: the accused's family, friends, or perhaps a criminal accomplice, or the attorney himself who has a reduced caseload. Would the police be required to inform the accused no matter who was seeking representation for the accused, even if such representation is sought out of the self-interest of the party seeking the representation? An infinite number of circumstances could be envisioned only to create a new extension of the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court in Burbine found Miranda sufficient protection of the suspect's constitutional rights before interrogation and found no need to further extend the exclusionary rule. We believe Burbine to be a reasonable consideration of the limit to which Miranda will be extended and that the Wisconsin Constitution does not require greater protection. Since the right to counsel and the right to remain silent are given by the constitution to the defendant, he alone can exercise those rights. Neither his family nor his attorney are threatened with accusations, nor do they have the defendant's knowledge of the case, including the defendant's knowledge of his own guilt or innocence, nor are they subject to the pain of the defendant's possibly guilty conscience. Therefore, no one but the accused can make the decision to make a statement to the police or to ask for the assistance of counsel in making his decision. Since both the rights and the person the rights are granted to, the accused, are the same under both the federal and Wisconsin Constitutions, there is no logical reason to find that someone other than the accused could exercise those rights under the Wisconsin Constitution. Id. at 211-13, 401 N.W.2d 771. To accept Justice Crooks' suggestion would be to overrule Hanson and the two decades of established Wisconsin precedent that have followed it. We decline to do so. Instead, we take this opportunity to emphasize that Hanson is still good law in this state. Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides the same protections prior to charging a suspect as does the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id.