Court Opinion

ID: 9628791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:32:01.696075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:11.317206
License: Public Domain

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the outcome of the majority’s opinion but write separately because I disagree with the majority that the “primary focus” in determining whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent is the conduct of the interrogating officers. As stated in Part I of Judge Moore’s dissent, a waiver is not valid if the defendant’s lack of maturity, intelligence, or mental capacity prevented him from comprehending the warnings issued to him. This is the case even if a reasonable officer would have believed the defendant comprehended the warnings. The majority’s reliance on Rice v. Cooper, 148 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.1998) is misplaced. The requirement that a waiver be knowing and intelligent serves a broader purpose than deterrence of police misconduct. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-84, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
Because I believe the district court did not err in finding Garner’s waiver knowing and intelligent under the facts of this case, I concur in the judgment only and would AFFIRM the decision of the district court.