Opinion ID: 2621304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: constitutional right to counsel

Text: The right to counsel is constitutionally compelled by the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [48] Both amendments, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for the right to counsel, each accruing at distinct times. [49] The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. [50] This includes the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedure which assures that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. [51] Our State constitution article I, section 9 [52] is equivalent to the Fifth Amendment and should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the Fifth Amendment by the Supreme Court. [53] The United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona fashioned a practical rule to ensure the integrity of the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, stating that as procedural safeguards ... the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. [54] A suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the corresponding right to be informed attaches when custodial interrogation begins. [55] A custodial interrogation which requires law enforcement officers to administer Miranda warnings to a suspect is defined as questioning initiated by the officers after a person is taken into custody. [56] Generally, in defining custody the Supreme Court has looked at the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and whether a reasonable person would have felt that person was not at liberty to terminate interrogation and leave. [57] Under federal and state case law, the right to counsel is a procedural safeguard ancillary to the Fifth Amendment. [58] The Sixth Amendment provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall... have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [59] Washington Constitution article I, section 22 similarly guarantees the accused the right to assistance of counsel. [60] In Powell v. Alabama , the United States Supreme Court, in defining the scope of the Sixth Amendment, recognized that this right must accrue at critical periods of the proceedings when trial preparation is vitally important. [61] In discussing the right to counsel in the context of a DUI prosecution, this court in City of Tacoma v. Heater observed that the right to counsel attaches at any critical stage in a criminal proceeding. [62] Because of the transitory nature of the evidence of intoxication, [63] a critical stage is reached immediately after arrest and charging for DUI. This court in Heater declared invalid a police requirement of a four-hour delay before allowing a person arrested for DUI to have the assistance of counsel. [64] The United States Supreme Court in Kirby v. Illinois subsequently stated that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment attaches at or after the initiation of formal judicial criminal proceedings. [65] Following that decision, it was concluded that when a person was arrested for DUI, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach until after a citation was issued. [66] That posture has since been modified by JCrR 2.11 and its successor CrRLJ 3.1.