Court Opinion

ID: 9667156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:36:49.302745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.399350
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion and find no violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights under these facts. This case, nevertheless, raises a concern about the access of counsel to an accused in custody. Statements by an accused must, first, be knowingly and intelligently made and, second, be made voluntarily. The appellant signed a document in this case evidencing that he knew what he was doing in making the statement and was doing so voluntarily. No doubt, in many cases the accused will make a statement to the police because it is obvious the authorities have a strong case against him or he wants to rid himself of the burden of the crime or he desires to curry favor with investigating officers and, incidentally, to receive some consideration for his efforts at sentencing. Equally obvious is the fact that an accused who learns that an attorney has been retained and is trying to see him may well cease further disclosures to police detectives. As the majority underscores, the emphasis must be placed on the accused and his voluntary and intelligent waiver. However, there is something vaguely chilling about an allegation that an accused was kept incommunicado from counsel for a period of time. Here, I hasten to add, the time was not extensive, since counsel did not make his first telephone call until 10:26 a.m., and the statement was signed minutes later at 10:51 a.m. Further, the facts are inconclusive about whether the department was purposefully delaying counsel contact. Police officers are well within their rights in limiting access to the accused during certain times such as a sensitive point in interrogations and a line-up when counsel has been waived. Surely, law enforcement does not have to “drop everything” when newly retained counsel calls. At some point, however, counsel must be given access, even though a waiver of counsel has been signed by the accused. That precise time limit is difficult to determine precisely, and the facts of each case must govern accessibility. Any hint, though, that detectives are rushing to finalize a statement while keeping counsel at bay should be avoided. Here, the limit on attorney access was not egregious enough to warrant an exclusion of the statement from evidence. As the U.S. Supreme Court warns, at some point it could be. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 432 (1986). Glaze, J., joins.