Opinion ID: 760837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Consent to Search

Text: 38 In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court declared that the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination, embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, requires that a custodial interrogation be preceded by advice to the putative defendant that he has the right to remain silent as well as the right to assistance of counsel. If he requests an attorney, the interrogation must cease until one is present. Id., 384 U.S. at 474, 86 S.Ct. at 1627. McClellan argues that law enforcement officials obtained his consent to search after he had affirmatively invoked his Fifth Amendment Miranda right to assistance of counsel and he was not afforded counsel at that time, and as such, the trial court committed error in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered by the police in his motel room and in his pick-up truck. 7 39 Of course, a custodial interrogation is the linchpin to triggering Miranda's protections. Neither party disputes that McClellan was in custody at the time he consented to the search. Instead, the relevant question here is whether his consent was obtained by reason of an unlawful interrogation after he requested an attorney. The Government submits that we need look no further than our opinion in United States v. Shlater, 85 F.3d 1251 (7th Cir.1996), to resolve this issue in its favor. In that case, we reaffirmed this circuit's view that a request for consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of Miranda because the giving of such consent is not a self-incriminating statement. Id. at 1256 (citing United States v. Saadeh, 61 F.3d 510, 515 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 990, 116 S.Ct. 521, 133 L.Ed.2d 428 (1995)); see also United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1098 (7th Cir.1993) (We have held that a consent to search is not a self-incriminating statement and, therefore, a request to search does not amount to interrogation.... This view comports with the view taken by every court of appeals to have addressed the issue.) (citation omitted). It follows then, the Government argues, that neither Agent Alter nor Weida could be said to have interrogated McClellan merely by asking him whether he would consent to a search of his motel room and vehicle. We agree with the Government's contention; the rule in Shlater is dispositive, and we see no reason to depart from it. 40 McClellan, on the other hand, challenges the statements made by Agent Alter and Agent Weida leading up to, and including, their request for consent to search, not just the request itself. In other words, he states that the police obtained consent to search the pick-up truck and the motel room as a product of interrogation. Initially, we note that whether the agents' pre-consent questioning of McClellan constituted an interrogation is a question we need not address, as the request for consent to search can be properly separated from whatever illegal interrogation that might have preceded it, thereby making the consent constitutionally valid. See, e.g., Cody v. Solem, 755 F.2d 1323, 1330 (8th Cir.1985) (even though incriminating statements made during the course of an interrogation were properly suppressed because questioning did not cease after defendant requested counsel, the consent to search, and the fruits of that search, need not be suppressed to the extent that a consent to search is not an incriminating statement.) (citations omitted). It is only when the police coerce the defendant's consent to make a search during an interrogation that such consent will be considered as involuntary and thus unconstitutional. See Shlater, 85 F.3d at 1255 (Consent searches are valid only if the consent was freely and voluntarily given.) (citation and internal quotations omitted). McClellan does not contend that his consent was anything but voluntary. Of course, any uncounselled confession or incriminating statements an accused makes in the wake of questioning, if the accused has properly requested and not subsequently waived an attorney under Miranda and he is not afforded counsel, can be suppressed unless the Government is able to demonstrate that he knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628. Once again, a consent to search is not an incriminating statement. For these reasons, McClellan's Miranda argument must fail.