Opinion ID: 2453894
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The fourth interview was tainted by prior illegalities.

Text: Many of the same considerations lead us to conclude that Kalmakoff's statements made during the fourth interview were also tainted by prior illegalities. The same troopers conducted the fourth interview, and our analysis of the flagrancy of the prior illegalities and the information obtained from the earlier illegalities remains the same. We recognize that several of the Halberg factors weigh in favor of admitting the fourth interview: there was a break of almost 24 hours between the third and fourth interviews; Kalmakoff was at liberty during this interval; and the fourth interview took place at a different location. But given the exchange between the troopers and Kalmakoff at the beginning of the fourth interview, we cannot say that these factors created a break in the stream of events ... sufficient to insulate the [fourth] statement from the effect of all that went before. [108] The State argues that the fourth interview was sufficiently attenuated from the prior illegalities because the troopers were not in any way overbearing, and at the beginning of the interview advised Kalmakoff of his Miranda rights and made it clear that the choice to participate in the interview was Kalmakoff's. But this characterization of the beginning of the fourth interview is not completely accurate. As described previously, [109] the troopers again went to Kalmakoff's school to remove him from class. Kalmakoff repeatedly asked the troopers when he could return to class, and they initially provided misleading answers, telling Kalmakoff that he could go back to school in a few hours. [110] Trooper Allen then told Kalmakoff, I wanna have you talk with us about what happened so that we can understand it very clearly ... okay, so that nobody ... has any questions about stuff okay[,] would you like to go around with us and do that? Kalmakoff responded, I guess so. Thus, prior to administering Miranda warnings, and after misleading Kalmakoff about when he could return to school, the troopers had Kalmakoff agree to repeat the information that he had already provided to them. This exchange alone demonstrates that Kalmakoff's earlier incriminating statements materially affected his decision to participate in the final interview. Kalmakoff asked the troopers what was going to happen to him, and Trooper Allen eventually told Kalmakoff that the troopers would be taking him back to Anchorage to appear in front of a judge. Kalmakoff then made several additional incriminating statements, telling the troopers repeatedly that he didn't do it on purpose. The troopers reassured Kalmakoff that they understood and that they hadn't told the victim's family about Kalmakoff's involvement. It was only at that pointafter Kalmakoff had agreed to participate in the interview and made more incriminating statementsthat Trooper Allen administered Miranda warnings to Kalmakoff. Trooper Allen qualified the warnings by telling Kalmakoff, I want to go through this with you real quick and reminding him that we did this before. To fulfill their role as a critical constitutional safeguard, the Miranda warnings must effectively advise the suspect that he [has] a real choice about giving an admissible statement at that juncture and they must reasonably convey that [the suspect can] choose to stop talking even if he had talked earlier. [111] Even if the troopers had advised Kalmakoff of his Miranda rights at the outset of the fourth interview, the pattern and flagrancy of the previous violations would have raised the question whether those warnings were effective. But the troopers did not administer the warnings until Kalmakoff agreed to go over the information he had already provided and had made further incriminating statements. Trooper Allen's language also implied that the warnings were merely a formality. The administration of the warnings here thus could not have provided Kalmakoff with a meaningful choice and was not sufficient to insulate the fourth interview from the prior violations of Miranda and Kalmakoff's constitutional right to remain silent. We therefore conclude that Kalmakoff's decision to submit to the fourth interview was not sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the earlier violations, and Kalmakoff's statements must be suppressed.