Opinion ID: 852106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying the Test Here.

Text: We conclude that Jewell's sexual misconduct was notbased on the facts and circumstances known to Detective Judy at the time of the phone callsso closely related to the offense of tattooing a minor as to be inextricably intertwined. The respective offenses were not linked temporally or geographically, nor by any common motive in the record. It is true that the primary partiesJewell, T.S., and Detective Judywere the same. However, that does not end the inquiry. The sexual misconduct occurred over a period of years, from 2004 to 2007, at both T.S.'s and Jewell's homes, whereas the tattooing was a single incident at a single locationan otherwise-unrelated tattoo parlorand took place almost a year after the sexual relationship ended. In fact, aside from the identity of the parties, the nuclei of operative facts for the two offenses are wholly and logically distinct. Not only would it be possible for Detective Judy to confine his questioning to the facts and circumstances of one offense without straying into a discussion of the other, that is exactly what occurred. Cf. Covarrubias, 179 F.3d at 1226 n. 8. Furthermore, while one might now hypothesize that Jewell's conduct facilitating T.S.'s tattoo was some form of grooming related to the sexual misconduct, at the time Detective Judy conducted his investigation there was no indication that this could have been the case. Nor has this been claimed by any party. For that matter, while the motive for the sexual misconduct appears clearJewell's own sexual gratificationthere is no evidence whatsoever of any particular motive for the tattooing offense. In sum, there is no evidence that it would have been objectively foreseeable for Detective Judy, at the time he conducted the phone calls, to believe the pending tattooing offense was inextricably intertwined with the alleged sexual misconduct. His inquiry into Jewell's alleged sex crimes was a proper exercise of his responsibility to protect society by investigating potential criminal activities and did not violate Jewell's right to counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Jewell's motion to suppress the recorded phone conversations.