Opinion ID: 751346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tankleff's Confession

Text: 14 Tankleff argues that his confession should have been suppressed because it was involuntary and because it was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). These two claims are interrelated, but analytically distinct. If a defendant's confession was obtained by  'techniques and methods offensive to due process' or under circumstances in which the suspect clearly had no opportunity to exercise 'a free and unconstrained will,'  the statements are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 304, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1290, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (quoting Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515, 514, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1344, 1343-44, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963)) (citations omitted). The prophylactic rule of Miranda sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself, however, and requires the suppression of some confessions that, while perhaps not actually involuntary, were obtained in the presumptively coercive environment of police custody. See, e.g., id. at 306-07, 105 S.Ct. at 1291-92; New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2630-31, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) (The Miranda Court ... presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and held that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights.) (footnote omitted). 15 A suspect is entitled to Miranda warnings only if he or she is interrogated while in custody. See, e.g., Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 100-01, 116 S.Ct. 457, 460, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). The trial court found that Tankleff was not in custody prior to the administration of the Miranda warnings and that his confession was therefore admissible. Similarly, the three-judge majority of the Appellate Division held that Tankleff was not in custody when he arrived at the police headquarters, and stated that Detective McCready's ruse was irrelevant to Tankleff's custody status. See Tankleff, 606 N.Y.S.2d at 710. Since Tankleff was not deemed to be in custody before he received the Miranda warnings, the appellate court held that the admission of his confession was proper. See id. 16 The two dissenting judges on the Appellate Division believed that Tankleff was clearly in custody after Detective McCready's ruse and said that no reasonable, innocent person who found himself identified as the perpetrator in this manner would have believed that he was free to leave. Id. at 712 (O'Brien, Eiber, JJ., dissenting). In addition, the dissenters noted, even after employing the ruse, the interrogating detectives continued to question the defendant without the benefit of Miranda warnings until he began to break and give inculpatory statements. Id.The dissenters concluded that [u]nder these circumstances, the issuance of the Miranda warnings to the defendant shortly after the ruse was insufficient to dissipate the taint of the previous improper police conduct, as the defendant was subjected to continuous custodial questioning. Id. (citing People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 341 N.E.2d 243 (1975)). 17 The New York Court of Appeals stated that [t]here is support in the record for the undisturbed finding of the trial court that defendant was not in custody and thus was not entitled to Miranda warnings at any point before he indicated his desire [to confess.] And in view of its limited power to review mixed questions of law and fact, the court affirmed the Appellate Division. See Tankleff, 622 N.Y.S.2d at 504, 646 N.E.2d 805 (citing People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447 (1982)). 18 The Supreme Court has held that two discrete inquiries are involved in determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. at 465 (footnote omitted). The first question is purely factual, and the state court's answer to it is afforded a presumption of correctness under § 2254(d). 1 The second determination is a mixed question of fact and law qualifying for de novo review by the habeas court. See id. 19 In the case before us, the first determination--what happened--is not really in dispute. The police interrogated Tankleff on and off from 6:17 to 11:54 a.m. without giving him Miranda warnings. The only dispute is over the ultimate legal issue--whether Tankleff was in custody at any point before 11:54 a.m.--a question on which we owe no special deference to the state court's findings. 20 In determining whether a suspect was in custody, we look at all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. The relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-52, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). And custody exists for Miranda purposes if a reasonable person in that position would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. at 465. As the Second Circuit recently stated: 21 The test used in determining whether a defendant was in custody is an objective one that (a) asks whether a reasonable person would have understood herself to be subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest, and (b) focuses upon the presence or absence of affirmative indications that the defendant was not free to leave. An accused is in custody when, even in the absence of an actual arrest, law enforcement officials act or speak in a manner that conveys the message that they would not permit the accused to leave. 22 United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062, 1067 (2d Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 927, 116 S.Ct. 330, 133 L.Ed.2d 230 (1995); see also United States v. Morales, 834 F.2d 35, 38 (2d Cir.1987) (a custodial setting is evidenced by inherently coercive pressures that tend to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak). 23 Courts have looked at various factors in making this determination. These include: whether a suspect is or is not told that she is free to leave, see Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014, 1021 n. 1 (2d Cir.1989); the location and atmosphere of the interrogation, see Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 494-95, 97 S.Ct. 711, 713-14, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); the language and tone used by the police, see United States v. Guarno, 819 F.2d 28, 31-32 (2d Cir.1987); whether the suspect is searched, frisked, or patted down, see United States v. Wilson, 901 F.Supp. 172, 175 (S.D.N.Y.1995); and the length of the interrogation, see Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 437-38, 104 S.Ct. at 3148-49. 24 Based on the totality of the circumstances, we believe that Tankleff was in custody and hold that he was entitled to the Miranda warnings at some point prior to 11:54 a.m., when he was finally advised of his rights. For the last two hours, he had been subjected to increasingly hostile questioning at the police station, during which the detectives had accused him of showing insufficient grief, had said that his story was ridiculous and absurd, and had added that they simply could not accept his explanations. Finally, at 11:45 a.m. they told him that his father had woken up from a coma and accused him of the attack. If not before, then certainly by this point in the interrogation no reasonable person in Tankleff's position would have felt free to leave. Tankleff should, therefore, have been advised of his rights as required by Miranda much earlier than he was, and all of the inculpatory statements he made before receiving the warnings should have been suppressed. 25 Our analysis does not end here, however, because the police did eventually, if belatedly, administer the Miranda warnings. Tankleff then waived his rights, and repeated and elaborated upon his confession. Under the Supreme Court's holding in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), it does not follow that these later statements must be suppressed as fruit of the original Miranda violation. In Elstad, the Court stated: 26 It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect's ability to exercise his free will, so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period. 27 Id. at 309, 105 S.Ct. at 1293. Thus, the Court stated, [t]hough Miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made. Id. 28 We must, therefore, consider whether the circumstances surrounding Tankleff's first, unwarned confession were so coercive as to prevent him from making a subsequent knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights, thereby requiring the suppression of his second, warned confession. Serious pressures inherent in custodial interrogation will inevitably be present in any case under Elstad--which, after all, addresses situations in which a defendant was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings at some point before those warnings were given. Thus, we cannot rely solely on the Miranda presumption that custodial interrogation is coercive in determining whether Tankleff's second confession must be suppressed. We must look, once again, to the totality of the circumstances. Cf. Campaneria, 891 F.2d at 1019-20 (examining all the circumstances surrounding the law enforcement officials' conduct to ascertain whether it overcame the accused's will to resist and brought about a confession that was not freely self-determined); United States v. Anderson, 929 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir.1991) (in determining the voluntariness of a confession, courts look to the accused's characteristics, the conditions of the interrogation, and the conduct of law enforcement officials); Green v. Scully, 850 F.2d 894, 901-02 (2d Cir.1988) (same). 2 29 We have previously stressed the fact-specific nature of these sorts of determinations. As we said in Green v. Scully, each case rests on its own state of facts and ... what was adequate in one case to produce an involuntary confession does not establish that the same result has been created in a different, but somewhat similar set of circumstances. 850 F.2d at 902. Compare Anderson, 929 F.2d at 102 (Under the totality of the circumstances, [DEA agent's] statements contributed to the already coercive atmosphere inherent in custodial interrogation and rendered [the defendant's] first confession involuntary as a matter of law and barred the admission of his second confession under Elstad ); and Quartararo v. Mantello, 715 F.Supp. 449, 456-66 (E.D.N.Y.) (granting habeas to fifteen-year-old defendant who, without receiving Miranda warnings, had been subjected to four hours of incommunicado interrogation and was told by police that another witness had accused him of the murder), aff'd, 888 F.2d 126 (2d Cir.1989); with Green, 850 F.2d at 904 (holding that police tactics considered together did not overbear [the defendant's] will and bring about his confession). 30 Finally, it bears emphasizing that Elstad is not a license for police to neglect the Miranda warnings in order more easily to obtain a confession, on the theory that they can remedy this omission after the fact. As we have stated, the use of coercive and improper tactics in obtaining an initial confession may warrant a presumption of compulsion as to a second one, even if the latter was obtained after properly administered Miranda warnings. Anderson, 929 F.2d at 102 (citing Elstad, 470 U.S. at 314, 105 S.Ct. at 1296). Thus, we look to Miranda's  'twin rationales--trustworthiness and deterrence--' to see whether suppression of the second statement would serve the general goal of deterring unlawful police conduct and the Fifth Amendment goal of assuring the receipt of trustworthy evidence. Id. (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 308, 105 S.Ct. at 1292-93). 31 The issue is a close one. But, based on all the circumstances, we conclude that, under Elstad, the interrogation that took place before the reading of the Miranda warnings barely did not entail that degree of coercion that would irredeemably taint Tankleff's second, Mirandized confession. Furthermore, and crucially important, there is no indication in the record that Tankleff did not understand his rights once he was given the warnings or that his subsequent waiver of those rights was anything but knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we hold that Tankleff's second confession was properly admitted. 32 The court should, nonetheless, have suppressed Tankleff's inculpatory pre-Miranda statements. Since those statements were, however, brief and substantially the same as some of his later, admissible confession, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Rollins v. Leonardo, 938 F.2d 380, 382 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam) (applying harmless error doctrine to Miranda violation); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306-12, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1262-66, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (applying harmless error analysis even to a coerced confession). 33 There remains one loose end with respect to Tankleff's Miranda claims. We note that the state courts did not distinguish between Tankleff's first and second confessions. They presumably did this in part because they--incorrectly under federal law--held that Tankleff was not in custody when he made his first confession. But they, perhaps, also failed to distinguish between the confessions because the New York Court of Appeals has declined on state constitutional grounds to follow the rule of Oregon v. Elstad. See People v. Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364, 502 N.Y.S.2d 713, 714, 493 N.E.2d 937, 938 (1986) (per curiam) (We conclude that the mandate of N.Y. Constitution, article I, § 6 that '[n]o person ... shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself' would have little deterrent effect if the police know that they can as part of a continuous chain of events question a suspect in custody without warning, provided only they thereafter question him or her again after warnings have been given.) (alteration in original). Thus, under New York law the rule with respect to Miranda warnings remains that [l]ater is too late, unless there is such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning. People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 378 N.Y.S.2d 682, 685-86, 341 N.E.2d 243, 245-46 (1975); Bethea, 502 N.Y.S.2d at 714, 493 N.E.2d 937 (The rule of the Chapple case, therefore, continues as a matter of State constitutional law, to govern the admissibility of statements obtained as a result of continuous custodial interrogation.). 34 It might appear--given the state court holdings rejecting Elstad and given our decision that Tankleff was in custody, thereby making his first confession inadmissible under Miranda--that we should also deem his second confession to be excludable. But we can only grant habeas relief based on violations of federal rights, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Thus, it is not for us to say whether Tankleff might or might not have any claim based on state constitutional law as a result of our holding that Tankleff was, under Miranda and its federal progeny, in custody at the time of his first confession. We note that the validity of such a claim would seem to turn on whether the definition of custody under the New York constitution tracks the definition of that term under the federal constitution. Cf. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1037-40, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3474-76, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (discussing the difficulties faced by federal courts in ascertaining whether state courts have used federal law to guide their application of state law or to provide the actual basis for the decision that was reached); South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 556-58 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 916, 919 n. 5, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) (same).