Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Initiation of Discussion

Text: Once at the police station, Lyons was taken to the area where gunshot residue tests were performed. Detective Judy Gentry recognized Lyons and called him by name. They had met approximately ten years earlier while working at the same hotel. Det. Gentry told Lyons that she would be performing the gunshot residue test on him. Lyons asked Det. Gentry if he could call an attorney and she told him that he could do so after the test. After the test, without prompting, Lyons stated that he had just snapped. At this point, Det. Gentry introduced Sergeant Dennis Overbey of the Missouri Highway Patrol to Lyons as the officer who would be handling the case. Lyons then volunteered that he and Bridgette had recently been having relationship problems. Det. Gentry asked Lyons if he wanted to call an attorney and gave him a phone book. Lyons said he did not know an attorney to call. When Gentry told him that she could not advise him to call any specific attorney, Lyons stated that he did not want to call an attorney. Lyons asked to see his sister Lily Mae. After forty-five minutes alone with his sister, Lyons stated that he needed to talk to an attorney, but did not have any money. Det. Gentry informed Lyons that he could still call an attorney for advisement. Lyons stated that he would wait for a court-appointed attorney. Overbey then told Lyons that we weren't going to talk to him any more and that if he wanted to talk to us he would have to ask for us since he had mentioned he thought he needed to talk to an attorney. As Sergeant Overbey led Lyons away to the holding area, Lily Mae told Det. Gentry to tell Lyons that she would sit with him should he decide to talk to the officers. Det. Gentry stopped Lyons in the hall. Det. Gentry's testimony was that she then brought Lily Mae into the hallway so Lyons would know that [Lily Mae] had said that [she would sit with him], and I repeated what she had said, and then she also repeated it to him. Sgt. Overbey continued with Lyons down the hall. Sgt. Overbey testified at the motion hearing that as we went to step inside the door, [Lyons] made a statement, and I didn't really hear him, and I said, what? And he said `I will talk to you now.' Lyons claims that when Det. Gentry told him that his sister would sit with him if he spoke with the police, she initiated interrogation in violation of Miranda : If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. 384 U.S. at 474, 86 S.Ct. at 1628. Lyons also relies on Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), an accused... having expressed his desire to deal with police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Lyons's argument is that his taped confession is inadmissible because he did not initiate it and he had already invoked his right to counsel. As for his statement to Sgt. Overbey I will talk to you now, Lyons claims that these words were not an initiation of further communication, exchanges, or conversations because Det. Gentry had already initiated such by relaying his sister's message. Custodial interrogation was defined in Miranda as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody.... 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), the Supreme Court noted that interrogation under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police ... should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Just because Lyons decided to speak to the police some time after Det. Gentry relayed Lily Mae's message, it cannot be concluded that Det. Gentry should have known that her actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating statement from Lyons. [P]olice surely cannot be held for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions. Id. Moreover, a statement unrelated to the investigation followed by a confession does not amount to interrogation. [I]nquiries or statements ... relating to routine incidents of the custodial relationship will not generally `initiate' conversation in the sense in which that word was used in Edwards.  Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). The evidence at the motion to suppress hearing supports a finding that the only words that Det. Gentry spoke to Lyons were related to the custodial nature of her relationship with Lyons. She did not initiate interrogation by telling Lyons that his sister wanted him to know that she would sit with him if he decided to speak to the police. The evidence also supports a finding that when Lyons said I will talk to you now, he did initiate conversation with the police concerning their investigation.