Opinion ID: 2514149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ramos' Motion to Suppress

Text: Ramos argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement made to detectives during the custodial interrogation. He contends that the district court failed to consider the relevant factors in determining whether his confession, as a juvenile, was voluntary, and he also contends that his Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated. We first consider the claim that Ramos' confession was involuntary. Ramos was almost 17 years old at the time of the questioning. We have established factors to be considered in determining whether the confession of a juvenile is voluntary: (1) the age of the minor, (2) the length of the questioning, (3) the minor's education, (4) the minor's prior experience with the police, and (5) the minor's mental state. State v. Davis, 268 Kan. 661, 674, 998 P.2d 1127 (2000). The district court need not explicitly consider these factors on the record, but the better practice is to do so. Where an examination of the record shows that under the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile's confession was voluntary, the district court's decision will not be overturned on appeal. 268 Kan. at 675. At the suppression hearing, the district court heard the testimony of Detectives Allen and Golubski, Santana Spurlock, who had been held at the same juvenile detention center, and Ramos. Allen testified that: (1) Ramos was in custody for at least 4 or 5 hours when the police started to question him, (2) the handcuffs were removed when Ramos was taken to the interrogation room, (3) Ramos was wide awake and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and (4) Ramos was in a good state of mind, polite, and [not] in a state of shock. According to Golubski, Ramos was tired. He said Ramos told them he had been up all night. Golubski did not recall whether Ramos was injured when the officers arrested him. Both detectives said that Ramos was read his Miranda rights before they initially talked to him. Ramos talked to the detectives for about 20 minutes. Then, the detectives turned on the recorder and read Ramos his Miranda rights again, intending to tape his statement. After hearing his Miranda rights the second time, Ramos said he wanted an attorney. Allen turned off the recorder and told Ramos they were finished talking. The detectives testified that when Golubski stopped to either make a phone call or to leave the room, Ramos asked them what his friends did. Detective Golubski told Ramos that the others gave statements. Then, Ramos said, Fuck it. I want to give a statement then. Allen reminded him that he had invoked his right to an attorney, but Ramos said he still wanted to give a statement. Then, Allen told Ramos, [Y]ou know you can have a lawyer here. Ramos said he understood his rights. When asked if he was sure he wanted to give a statement, Ramos said, Yes. Santana Spurlock saw Ramos in the juvenile detention center. According to Spurlock, Ramos was limping, had scratches on his face, and had knots on his head. Spurlock agreed that Ramos' bruises were pretty apparent by looking at his face. Ramos testified that the injuries that Spurlock saw occurred during his arrest. He said the arresting officers threw him to the ground, and one of them stepped, stood, or knelt on his back, while the other officer grabbed his head and hit his face on the ground. Ramos said the officers struck him on the back, arms, and head with something. He testified that he was real tired when he gave his statement to the detectives because he had not slept all night and was feeling the effects of being drunk and high. He said he tried to sleep while he waited to be questioned. Ramos emphasizes the fact that his parents were not present when he spoke to the police. The detectives did not ask him if he wanted his mother or father to be present. He notes that we have adopted a bright line rule requiring parent involvement when interrogating a juvenile under 14 years of age. In re B.M.B., 264 Kan. 417, Syl. ¶ 2, 955 P.2d 1302 (1998). Ramos was not under 14 years of age. The B.M.B. rule is not applicable. The district judge made the following findings regarding the motion to suppress: [T]hey told him that his friends had given statements, and at that point, he decided he'd go ahead and give a statement. The question here is ... I agree with youis ... who initiated this ... change; and your client indicates not that he didn't ask if ... everybody else or anybody else had given statements, he doesn't remember whether he asked it or not. And both detectives say that he asked it. Now, obviously theyonce they terminate an interview, they don't leave a recorder on just on the possibility that maybe somebody is going to change their mind. Clearly it doesn't happen very often once that right has been invoked. I think it's obvious from the photograph that the defendant has some scratches on his face. It looks like primarily on the right side. But he was there for some period of time, as far as I can tell; or at least from his testimony today, he didn't seek medical treatment. He didn't indicate that they ... had any effect on his ... state of mind at the time that he was giving the statement. In fact, essentially, he said the same thing about the alcohol and drugs. Now, he says the fatigue did, and that he was tired, and that they sometimes had to repeat... questions. But he never does say that anyone threatened himin fact, specifically says just the oppositeand as far as I can tell, doesn't say that anything that he said was ... not true as a result of this influence of the fatigue. Based upon the testimony I've heard, I don't believesimply based upon the defendant's age, simply based upon what are apparently superficial injuries sustained some seven hours later [sic], I can't find that this statement was not voluntary; and I can't find, based upon what I've heard, that the ... detectives are the ones who instigated his change of heart as to ... whether or not he was going to give a statement and invoke his right to counsel. I don't believe that there's a basis for me to suppress the statement, and ... so your motion is denied. Ramos argues that the court had no information concerning his maturity. However, the evidence showed that Ramos was 16 years old, had completed 9th grade, and lived independent of any adult. No evidence was presented regarding whether Ramos had previous experience in dealing with police officers. Ramos points out that he was at the police station for a considerable length of time before detectives questioned him. Allen testified that the initial delay was because several other people were interviewed before Ramos. Ramos was not given any food during his wait at the police station. Allen testified that Ramos was in a good state of mind and polite. Ramos did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Although Ramos seemed to be tired, he did not have slurred speech, his statements were coherent, and he was not repetitive. He was fully aware of why he was at the police station, and he testified that he understood his Miranda rights. The detectives did not ever use a threatening tone of voice or get physical with him during the questioning. No threats or promises were made to Ramos. We have stated that where the accused is a juvenile, this court exercises the greatest care in assessing the validity of the confession. Davis, 268 Kan. at 675. Applying our standard of review, under the totality of the circumstances, Ramos' statement was voluntary and properly admitted by the district court.