Opinion ID: 2334182
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does the denial of the request to make a telephone call require suppression of the written statement?

Text: The defendant argues that he was denied the opportunity to make a phone call prior to writing his statement, thus making his statement involuntary. The defendant asked the investigators: Is there any way I'll be able to make a phone call tonight? Investigator Hodge replied: Yeah, soon as we get you downstairs we'll get you on the phone and try to post bond, okay? The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that this exchange was in no way coercive. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-106(b) (2006) provides: No person under arrest by any officer. . . shall be named in any book, ledger or any other record until after the person has successfully completed a telephone call to an attorney, relative, minister or any other person that the person shall choose, without undue delay. One (1) hour shall constitute a reasonable time without undue delay. However, if the arrested person does not choose to make a telephone call, then the person shall be booked or docketed immediately. With respect to this provision, we have held that The failure to afford to a defendant the phone call required by this statute is but one factor to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the defendant's statement and whether the conduct of the officers has overcome the will of the accused. Automatic suppression of the statement is not called for. State v. Claybrook, 736 S.W.2d 95, 103 (Tenn.1987). While the investigating officers did not comply with the requirements of section 40-7-106(b), we are not persuaded that the statutory violation warrants suppression of the statement. The defendant's request to make a phone call came after he had already made his verbal confession to the investigating officers. Their denial of his request until after he provided a statement in writing, given the totality of the circumstances, did not render that written statement the product of police coercion. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the finding by the trial court that the written statement was voluntary, this issue is without merit.