Legal Document

479 U.S. 564 107 S.Ct. 851 93 L.Ed.2d 954 COLORADOv.SPRING. No. 85-1517. Argued Dec. 9, 1986. Decided Jan. 27, 1987. Syllabus In February 1979, respondent and a companion shot killed one Walker during hunting trip in Colorado. Thereafter, based on information received from an informant as to respondent's involvement the interstate transportation of stolen firearms, agents Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) set up undercover purchase firearms respondent, March 30, arrested him. After being advised his Miranda rights, signed statement that he understood waived rights was willing answer questions. The then questioned him about transactions led arrest also asked whether had ever anyone, which answered "shot another guy once." But when man named Walker, said "no." On May 26, Colorado law enforcement officers gave warnings, again waive them. He confessed murder effect. Upon charged state court with first-degree murder, moved suppress both 30 26 statements ground waiver invalid. trial held ATF agents' failure inform before interview they would question did not affect therefore should be suppressed. But, while ruling inadmissible other grounds, made freely, voluntarily, intelligently suppressed, hence admitted it evidence, convicted. Court Appeals reversed, holding invalid because informed State failed prove product prior illegal statement. Supreme affirmed, confession have been suppressed "fruit" Held: A suspect's awareness all crimes may is relevant determining validity decision Fifth Amendment privilege; accordingly, subject matter interrogation could privilege constitutionally significant manner. Pp. 571-577. (a) cannot "fruit poisonous tree" if tree itself poisonous. 571-572. (b) Respondent's voluntary absent evidence will overborne capacity for self-determination critically impaired coercive police conduct. His knowingly made, is, right remain silent anything used against Constitution does require suspect know understand every possible consequence privilege. Here, there no allegation or misunderstood consequences speaking freely. 573-575. (c) Mere silence by officials "trickery" sufficient invalidate rights. Once warnings are given, difficult see how official cause misunderstand nature constitutional refuse any questions might incriminate additional this case only wisdom waiver, its knowing nature. 575-577. 713 P.2d 865, reversed remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, joined, post, p. 577. Maureen Phelan, petitioner. Lawrence S. Robbins, New York City, U.S., amicus curiae, support petitioner, special leave Court. Seth Jeremy Benezra, Denver, Colo., respondent. Justice POWELL 1 v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966), self-incrimination valid knowingly, intelligently. Id., at 444, S.Ct., 1612. This presents 2 * John Leroy Spring Donald Shortly thereafter, told engaged firearms. discussed participation killing. At time information, Walker's body found report disappearance. Based relating violations, operation Spring. Kansas Missouri, purchase. 3 An agent scene rights.1 second after transported office City. office, stop questioning until presence attorney secured. written form stating make 4 first arrest. They criminal record. juvenile record shooting aunt 10 years old. anyone else. ducked head mumbled, "I no. thrown into snowbank. paused ended point. 5 visited jail City pursuant offenses. indicating wanted homicide. indicated "wanted get off chest." lasted approximately 11/2 hours, murder. During time, talked freely officers, indicate desire terminate questioning, never requested counsel. prepared summarizing interview. read, edited, 6 rights: 7 "[T]he themselves suggested topic inquiry. dealt 'shooting anyone' specifically killing throwing snowbank were designed gather readily evident apparent silent, answering questions, Attorney present interrogation. elect exercise homicide, nor request Counsel interrogation." App. Pet. Cert. 4-A. 8 Accordingly, concluded grounds. court, however, subsequently ruled Spring's once" irrelevant, context discussion inference related For reason, trial. "was intelligently, [Spring's] properly fully but evidence." 5-A. trial, convicted murder.2 9 argued appeal Although introduced claimed statement, Wong Sun United States, 371 471, 83 407, 441 (1963), agreed Spring, "had duty suspect, readvise murder." 671 965, 966 (1983). Because do so interview, "any regard elicit death given intelligently." 967. meet burden proving conviction remanded new directing sought introduce determine "taint" sufficiently attenuated allow introduction affirmed judgment Appeals, although reasoning differed some respects. 865 (1985). found: 11 must determined upon examination totality circumstances surrounding making voluntary, intelligent. No factor always determinative analysis. Whether, what extent, has aware commencement simply court's evaluation total circumstances, major even situations." 872-873 (citations omitted). concluded: 12 "Here, absence advisement lack basis conclude execution reasonably expected extend subject, factors undermining waiver." 874 (emphasis original). 13 Erickson, joined Rovira, dissented resolution issue, stating: 14 "Law under person custody charges investigated All requires says can consult lawyer interrogation, afford appointed represent him." 880 15 justices "ample conclusion rights" rejected "the majority's 1979 matters reviewed police." 881. further proceedings consistent opinion. We granted certiorari, 476 1104, 106 1961, 90 368 (1986), resolve arguable Circuit conflict3 review Court's determination subjects sometimes consideration assessing valid. now reverse. II 17 There dispute obtained complete informing nevertheless Our inquiry, therefore, centers statement.4 18 States provides "shall compelled witness himself."5 "is applicable period custodial 460-461, 1620-1621.6 Miranda, "without proper safeguards process in-custody persons suspected accused crime contains inherently compelling pressures work undermine individual's resist compel speak where otherwise freely." 467, 1624. formulated now-familiar "procedural effective secure self-incrimination." fundamental aim designing "to assure choose between speech remains unfettered throughout process." 469, 1625. 19 Consistent purpose, privilege, "provided case, twice precisely manner specified Miranda. As we noted, enumerated expressing intention "there element duress coercion induce [on 1978]." 3-A. Despite explicit finding argues effect violation without argument strains meaning compulsion past breaking B 20 "compelled" within individual "voluntarily, intelligently" waives supra, inquiry coerced "has two distinct dimensions." Moran Burbine, 475 412, 421, 1135, 1141, 89 410 (1986): 21 "First relinquishment sense free deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, deception. Second, full abandoned abandon it. Only 'totality interrogation' reveal uncoerced requisite level comprehension waived." Ibid. (quoting Fare Michael C., 442 707, 725, 99 2560, 2572, 61 197 (1979)). 22 doubt voluntary. alleges "coercion physical violence means calculated break [his] will," Oregon Elstad, 470 298, 312, 105 1285, 1295, 84 222 (1985), none. supply certain relate traditional indicia coercion: duration conditions detention . ., manifest attitude toward him, mental state, diverse sap sustain powers resistance self-control." Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 602, 81 1860, 1879, 1037 (1961) (opinion Frankfurter, J.). Absent "will [was] impaired" conduct, ibid.; Connelly, 157, 163-164, 515, ----, 473 23 made: 422, 1141; 316-317, 1296-1297. Amendment's guarantee simpler more fundamental: defendant himself respect. protect ensuring knows talk counsel present, discontinue talking time. ensure these intelligent requiring including critical advice whatever chooses say 24 basic guaranteed Amendment. Nor officials. sum, think indisputably correct III A. 25 relies threatened, tricked, cajoled show voluntarily privilege." 476, 1629. contends potential constitutes trickery deception condemned thus rendering reads out due protect. note courts trickery.7 fact, noted above, expressly statements." Supra, 573. insists constituted conduct amount "coercion." Even assuming proposed distinction merit, reject conclusion. mere decline hold today.8 27 right—"his Washington, 431 181, 188, 97 1814, 1819, 52 238 (1977). "Indeed, seems self-evident who curious posture later complain answers compelled." "useful" "might affec[t] confess." 1141. "[W]e read flow help calibrate self-interest deciding stand rights." Ibid.9 essentially 28 required qualification broad warning. warning, conveys abandoning advance IV 29 inconsistent It ordered. 31 whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 32 asserts "no doubt" made. Ante, 573 574. I agree, exists carry "heavy burden" recognized 475, 1628, establishing alleged waiver. 33 our decisions, acknowledges such § protections examined light " ' "totality circumstances." 573, quoting turn (1979); id., 724-725, 2571-2572; North Carolina Butler, 369, 374-375, 1755, 1757-58, 60 286 Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Nonetheless, proceeds specific topics investigation known interrogating begins "not relevant" to, "could affect," me necessarily influenced scope seriousness investigation. 34 To attempt minimize relevance saying of" opposed ventures inapposite distinction. Wisdom overlapping concepts, highly context. Indeed, admittedly "critical" piece recognizes today—that him—is certainly submit consulting lawyer. offers principled concluding that, calls analysis, knowledge previously identified be. 35 quotes "a 'useful' 'might confess.' 576 added). Noticeably similar today: "[A] determining" 577 careful phraseology avoids important indication 36 include among waiving aware, either through arresting committing intended ask 'virtue prosecutors specificity' pretrial conducted," ante, 577, n. 718, 2568), interfere use legitimate techniques. articulate minimum contribute significantly fact lawful error stage alone, problem addressed Brown Illinois, 422 590, 601, 95 2254, 2260, 45 416 (1975), Fourth assumption defendant's See Dunaway York, 200, 217, 2248, 2259, 824 (1979) (voluntary threshold requirement analysis). 37 tactics utilized demonstrate receive. evidently hoped obtain federal charge parlay admission latter, separate offense occurred different outside normal investigative focus agents. 38 "Interrogators describe point 'breakthrough' 'beachhead,' R. Royal & Schutt, Gentle Art Interviewing Interrogation: Professional Manual Guide 143 (1976), once give them enormous 'tactical advantages,' F. Inbau J. Reid, Criminal Interrogation Confessions (2d ed. 1967)." 328, (1985) (BRENNAN, dissenting). aspects psychological ploy combined surprise far too easily rise deception,1 justified strict requirements knowing, 445-458, 475-476, 1612-1613, 1628. If regarding crime, today respect regardless relation believes address. Yet afforded "inherently pressures" 1624 effectively dissipated. Additional entirely serious suspicions activity take unfair advantage unexpected compulsive suddenly reappear. Given technique understanding planned very least "relevant" 39 Not relevant, case. State's "heavy" one. 'indulge reasonable presumption waiver' shall 'not presume acquiescence loss rights.' Johnson, 1023 omitted); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 404, 1232, 1242, 51 424 intent unrelated arrested, consented attorney. accept 873-874 (1985).2 40 dissent. Under "be warned attorney, retained appointed." third July 13, pleaded guilty offenses charging issued unanimously effort reaffirm declined particular questions." 878 certiorari evidence. (1986). admissibility us. followed lead several Federal Courts considered Burger, 728 F.2d 140, 141 (CA2 1984); Carter Garrison, 656 68, 70 (CA4 1981) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 455 952, 102 1458, 71 668 (1982); McCrary, 643 323, 328 (CA5 1981). Other Anderson, 175 U.S.App.D.C. 75, 77, 3, 533 1210, 1212, (1976); Campbell, 97, 99, (CA9 1970). petition rehearing renders admissible remand. P.2d, 876. Elstad independent admitting us Due Process Clause Fourteenth Constitution. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 1489, 653 (1964). issue "custodial interrogation" "Though true [the agents] advise part their inquiry." According "It unclear violations began concerning What clear tell going original 871. affirmative misrepresentations See, e.g., Lynumn 372 528, 917, 922 (1963) (misrepresentation deprived financial aid her dependent child she cooperate authorities rendered subsequent involuntary); Spano 360 315, 79 1202, 1265 (1959) friend lose job officer involuntary). confronted misrepresentation reach circumstance. Such extension spawn numerous problems interpretation number vitiate great extent rule's "virtue specificity" conducted. 2568, (1979). rejects, now, notion "mere silence" deprive constitute deception, though acknowledge arise 576, 8. 453, 1157, STEVENS' stated deceptive misstatement concealment family offered assistance. ." officers' equally critical. places especially heavy self-incrimination: "[A]ny will, course, 1628 preconceived plan reference separate, precludes carrying burden. Nothing interpreting independently recognizing validly law. Colo. Const., Art. II, 18.

Classification Label: 0