Opinion ID: 2621304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: sufficiency of advisement of rights

Text: We next consider whether the advisement WSP DUI Arrest Report form satisfied CrRLJ 3.1(b)(1) which provides that [t]he right to a lawyer shall accrue as soon as feasible after the defendant has been arrested. The advisement form employed by law enforcement prior to the dates of arrest in these cases (previous form) stated that [y]ou have the right at this time to an attorney of your own choosing and to have him or her present before or during questioning. [115] The form further provided that [i]f you cannot afford an attorney you are entitled to have one appointed for you by the court without cost to you and to have him or her present before or during questioning. [116] On the dates of the arrests in these consolidated cases, a revision had been made to the form (revised form) deleting the words at this time. The effect of this revision was to provide that the right to a lawyer accrues, not when a person is taken into custody, but rather at the time an arrestee is questioned or judicial proceedings instituted, whichever is earlier. As we have noted, the court rule, which we construe to provide a right to counsel immediately upon arrest, goes beyond the constitutional requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution. As set forth in Miranda v. Arizona , [117] under the Fifth Amendment the advisement of rights need be given only if a suspect is in custody and about to be interrogated. [118] Further, absent the court rule, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment attaches only if judicial proceedings have been initiated. [119] The State contends that the giving of Miranda rights satisfied CrRLJ 3.1, relying on Juckett and State v. Teller . [120] In both those cases the court concluded the warnings read to defendants (except for Defendant Marquez in Juckett ) were sufficient to advise them of their right to counsel under Miranda and under the court rule. The advisement read in those cases, however, adequately conveyed that the defendants had a right to assistance of counsel immediately after arrest and could exercise that right at any time. [121] In Templeton the Court of Appeals, Division One, acknowledges that [p]roperly worded Miranda warnings may be sufficient to advise a person of the rule-based right to counsel even if the warnings do not mirror the language of the rule. If the warnings given here had adequately conveyed to Respondents their right to consult counsel before the breath test, then the warnings would have satisfied the rule. [122] Division One concluded, Unfortunately, they did not. [123] In Dunn, the Court of Appeals, Division Two, agreed that the warnings did not satisfy the rule. The revised form stated that the right to a lawyer accrues when the defendant is questioned. A defendant can be in custody, yet not be questioned. Clearly then, the revised form did not satisfy the rules. [124] Where Divisions One and Two part company on this issue is in determining whether the failure to satisfy the rule prejudiced these defendants.