Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The May 10 Statements and the May 16 Statement.

Text: Defendant claims that his May 10 statement, because it was obtained illegally, tainted the subsequent tape-recorded statement that was obtained after defendant was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. We disagree. Even though defendant's first statement on May 10 was obtained without a Miranda advisement, we conclude that because it was voluntarily given, it did not taint the subsequent recorded confession.
The prosecutor stipulated that defendant was arrested on May 10, 1990, in Sparks, Nevada, taken to an interrogation room at the Sparks, Nevada Police Department and placed in an interview room that was monitored by videotape. The videotape was played in court. The prosecutor further stipulated that defendant was first questioned by an unknown Nevada police officer and then by Detective Bennett, and that neither law enforcement officer administered defendant his Miranda rights. The videotape revealed that an unidentified Nevada police officer asked defendant about the present location of the car defendant had been driving. Defendant first stated he could not remember the name of the town, but later stated it may have been Chilcoot, Nevada. Defendant also informed the officer that he left his blue duffel bag in a motel. The conversation was not continuous and is fairly characterized as miscellaneous small talk. The conversation eventually terminated, and the Nevada police officer left the room. Shortly thereafter, Detective Bennett entered the room, introduced himself, and asked defendant if he wanted to make a statement. Detective Bennett stated in part, [I]f you want to talk to me, I'll advise you of your rights. You've probably heard them before, you know? And I'd really like to hear your side of it. After Detective Bennett told defendant that it was his impression that defendant wanted to speak to him, defendant responded, I don't know how you got that impression. I would like to talk to an attorney first and then I'll talk to you. Detective Bennett responded, You've got that coming. Defendant repeated his earlier statement, I just want to talk to an attorney first, that's all. Detective Bennett responded, OK. But you don't have anything to say to me at this point? Defendant replied, No. He added that he was concerned for his safety once in Stanislaus County. After discussing the precautions he could take to ensure defendant's safety, Detective Bennett stated: You mentioned that you did want to talk to me, but you wanted to talk to an attorney first. I'll just say this: often times, when a person gets an attorney, the attorney tells them not to talk, and that's the advice. Defendant replied, I know that. Detective Bennett continued, And that's their job, and that's what they do, and they're entitled to their opinion. But it's still your case and it's still your life, and that's the decision you have to make. Defendant responded, I know what to expect from them, but I just want to talk to them first. You've got that coming and I'll talk to you. After an additional discussion regarding extradition, Detective Bennett later returned to this topic: I'll only say this one more time. You mentioned to me about your attorney. You want to talk to him. You've already talked to me, you thought you owed me that at least. If between now and tomorrow, or between now and the time we get back to Modesto you change your mind about that, let me know so I can set up a time we can talk in an interview room like this. You know, private. It's not going to be in the jail or anything like that. You may change your mind, and I want you to know you have the option to do that. Whatever you want to do. The interview was terminated. Defendant was then transferred to a county jail in Reno, Nevada. On May 14, a complaint and declaration of probable cause was filed in the Justice Court of Reno Township, County of Washoe, State of Nevada. On May 15, defendant was arraigned and indicated to the Nevada magistrate that he wished to waive extradition, and the waiver of extradition was filed. On May 16, defendant was moved to Modesto by Detectives Bennett and Viohl. They arrived at the sheriff's office at approximately 10:00 p.m. Bennett and Viohl escorted defendant to the interview room, removed his restraints and read him the Miranda warnings. Defendant waived his Miranda rights [5] and began his roughly two-hour statement. The entire interview was tape-recorded. The trial court ruled that defendant's May 16 statement to Detective Bennett was admissible. Although agreeing that the May 10 statement was illegally obtained and should be suppressed, the court found that given the six-day separation of time and space [and] geography, there was factually very little to support defendant's claim that Detective Bennett's statements on May 10 coerced him into making a statement on May 16. Instead, defendant's desire was to explain to the detective what happened to either justify, excuse or to relieve his soul of these things that were on his mind, which, of course he has the right to do.
Defendant correctly asserts, and the Attorney General concedes, that defendant was not Mirand ized in Nevada and that defendant's May 10 statements were properly suppressed at trial. But we do not agree with defendant's further assertion that the May 10 statements tainted defendant's May 16 statement, such that the latter should have been suppressed. In Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 309, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 ( Elstad ), the high court rejected the notion that a subsequent confession must necessarily be excluded because it followed an otherwise voluntary statement that was given without Miranda warnings. In Elstad, an officer had come to the defendant's home to arrest him. Without providing the required Miranda advisement, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why the officer was there and if he knew the burglary victims. The defendant's response was incriminating. The defendant later gave a full statement at the police station after having been advised of and having waived his Miranda rights. The high court held that despite the officer's initial failure to administer warnings to the defendant, the defendant's statement at the station need not be suppressed: [Absent] deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion. A subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement. ( Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 314, 105 S.Ct. 1285; accord, Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 2611-2612.) Despite the failure to administer Miranda warnings, there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's statements on May 10 were involuntary, or that they were particularly incriminating. As the videotape indicates, defendant answered a few questions posed by the Nevada police officer concerning the location of his car and his duffel bag. Defendant did not speak about the crime itself. When asked by Detective Bennett if he wanted to talk about the facts of the case, defendant refused and instead stated that he wanted to talk to an attorney before discussing the crime. Significantly, Detective Bennett and he discussed taking precautions for defendant's safety once in Stanislaus County and about extradition, but nothing about the crime itself. We therefore agree with the trial court's determination that defendant's May 10 statements did not taint his May 16 interview with Detective Bennett.