Opinion ID: 1779869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Taking Culp's Clothes Violated the Fifth Amendments

Text: ¶ 16. At the police station, Chief Eskridge escorted Culp into his office, where they talked while waiting for Sheriff March to arrive. While they were talking, Culp asked the Chief, without being prompted, whether he should remove his clothing and surrender it to the police. Eskridge responded that he probably should do so, but did not compel Culp to surrender his clothing. ¶ 17. Eskridge did not know that Sheriff March, while en route from the crime scene to the station, had spoken to someone and suggested that Culp's clothes needed to be examined. [5] After the Sheriff arrived at the police station, he took the clothes which Culp had removed, and placed them into an evidence bag. While doing this, he noticed red spots which appeared to be blood on them. At trial, the Sheriff acknowledged that Culp would not have been free to leave until he had an opportunity to speak with him and that Culp was represented by counsel. The record is silent as to whether Culp did, or did not, ask to leave. ¶ 18. The Fifth Amendment secures the right to have an attorney present if requested by individuals subject to custodial interrogation. Godbold, 731 So.2d at 1187 (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)). If the right to an attorney is denied or questioning continues without an attorney present after the accused has requested one, then the prosecution is prohibited from using any resulting statements. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. ¶ 19. To be subject to custodial interrogation one must be both in custody and undergoing interrogation. One is in custody if a reasonable person would find their ability to freely leave restricted. Id. Interrogation does not mean only questioning but rather questioning and its functional equivalent. Pierre v. State, 607 So.2d 43, 52 (Miss.1992). The United States Supreme Court has defined functional equivalent to mean words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1690, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). ¶ 20. In order for statements from a custodial interrogation to be admissible under the Fifth Amendment they must be preceded by proper Miranda warnings. Godbold, 731 So.2d at 1188. The use of statements given in response to police questioning will violate the Fifth Amendment if conducted in the absence of an attorney after the accused has specifically invoked the right to have one. Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 856 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 21. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence and not to real or physical evidence. Upshaw v. State, 350 So.2d 1358, 1364 (Miss.1977). In Upshaw, this Court held that clothing is not testimonial evidence and therefore the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will not bar its introduction at trial. Id. Use of Culp's clothing did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it was not testimonial. Clothing, as we stated in Upshaw, is physical evidence and not a statement. Further, at the time that Chief Eskridge told Culp that he should probably surrender his clothing, Culp was not under custodial interrogation. The exchange between Culp and Eskridge was initiated by Culp and not by the police, and lasted only long enough for Eskridge to reply to Culp's direct inquiry. It did not result in Eskridge asking any questions of Culp or taking any statements from him. ¶ 22. The facts indicate that Culp voluntarily surrendered his clothing to Chief Eskridge without police compulsion. Voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement. Morris v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000). When the State relies on consent to justify a seizure, the State must prove that it was voluntarily given and not the product of coercion or duress. Jackson v. State, 418 So.2d 827, 830 (Miss.1982). The Jones Court stated that the trial court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if consent was voluntary. Jones, 607 So.2d at 27. ¶ 23. Looking at the circumstances, it is clear that Culp's consent was voluntary. At the time he removed his clothing he was not confronted with police coercion. He did not object, but quietly sat by while the Sheriff placed his clothes in a bag. In the absence of coercion, Culp's voluntary behavior and silence means that he consented to the taking, and thus there was no violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.