Court Opinion

ID: 9602223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:52:34.451723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:01.592788
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting, joined by DIMOND, Senior Justice.
I dissent because I cannot tell, from the superior court’s oral opinion, which of its pronouncements are findings of fact and which are conclusions of law. Were it clear that the superior court completely rejected Giacomazzi’s testimony and believed Lt. Olson, I would affirm, as the case here presents the typical conflict of testimony which it is the function of the trial court to resolve. See Alaska Far East v. Newby, 630 P.2d 533 (Alaska 1981).1
However, certain of the superior court’s statements read more like conclusions of law or policy pronouncements than like findings of fact. Thus, I think there is a strong likelihood that the superior court’s reasoning in this regard may be altered by the recent case of Edwards v. Arizona, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
Specifically, those portions of the superior court’s opinion which concern me are as follows:
I think it’s possible, from the testimony of all 3 of the defendants, that some mention was made of counsel, or of access to an attorney, at or about the outset of the contact with the — with Lieutenant Olson. I regard . . . the matter though as being a casual inquiry, not as one in which the defendant perceived his right to counsel as going to his right to remain silent and his right to interview counsel before he proceeded with any statement to the police.... However, I do not perceive that a mere inquiry about making phone calls, about getting back to base, and about access to counsel, as being a request for counsel, or one that would impede the right of the policeman to conduct further inquiry. And that thereafter, if the person receives a Miranda warning, an opportunity to sign a waiver o[f] rights, if one is presented to him, as indicating at that time that the person does have the right, and may then refuse to go forward with any further interview. In other words, his attention is more — is directly invited to his rights at that time, and his right to stand upon the rights as — then confronts him in such a manner that he may then decline to proceed. Because as Lieutenant Olson stated, and I believe him, the serious talk about lawyers came up after when the men were confined in their cells and even more so the following day after the arraignment before the magistrate. The court does not perceive anything that took place at the outset, and prior to the formal Miranda warnings and formal waivers, as constituting a demand by any of these defendants for right to counsel. Every person I assume in this country that is brought in to an investigation by — of a crime is aware of his right to counsel, and it would be a natural subject to make an inquiry about at that time. These men were not shown to have been sophisticated criminals. They were people — apparently anyway in the first contact with civilian law enforcement authority, and I regard the questions, if any took place, and that’s even questionable in the court’s mind ... as merely a con*226cerned inquiry about the situation in which these people found themselves.2
In the Edwards case, the United States Supreme Court fashioned a per se rule in the right-to-counsel area, holding that an accused who has invoked his right to counsel may not be subjected to further interrogation without counsel, unless the accused himself initiates further communication. Since the superior court’s opinion in the case at bar can be read as indicating that the subsequent informing of Miranda rights and waiver by Giacomazzi cured any error that may have occurred in ignoring his “casual inquiry” about counsel, the superior court may find its conclusion changed by Edwards. If the superior court’s finding is one of fact that Giacomazzi had not made a request for counsel at all (as Lt. Olson testified), then its reasoning is unaffected by Edwards. If, on the other hand, the superior court’s conclusion was one of law that, even assuming some request for counsel had been made, the subsequent informing and waiver of Miranda rights by Giaco-mazzi rendered the confession admissible, then I think Edwards would compel reversal. Thus, I would remand the case for more explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law by the superior court.
I also think it appropriate to comment on the treatment to be given to the “casual” or “equivocal” inquiry. I think that the same considerations which require that the right to counsel be more rigidly observed after invoked than the right to silence, see note 2 of the majority opinion, make it essential that the police and courts be more sensitive to what may be a fairly tentative or timid inquiry concerning access to counsel than in the situation of one invoking the right to silence. The factors which the majority finds insufficient to render Giacomazzi’s signing of the waiver invalid (youth, length of detention prior to interrogation, and military conditioning in obedience to authority) may be more significant in assessing the extent to which we should require an affirmative and unequivocal statement of disobedience to authority in requesting an attorney. These factors are less weighty when we are assessing an individual’s written waiver; in that case, cooperation requires an affirmative step, and an individual signing a form can reasonably be expected to understand that he is taking a significant action. By remaining passive, the individual can retain his right to silence. In the case of invoking the right to counsel, the individual who remains passive loses his rights, and thus I think a lower threshold of vulnerability to intimidation is appropriate. It is not unreasonable to assume that the highest point to which an individual might be able to marshal his courage is that of making a tentative or timid inquiry as to when he will be able to talk to an attorney. If the interrogator can regard this as a “casual inquiry” to be brushed off, a great deal of the purpose behind Miranda and Edwards is lost. “The presumption is that ignoring or rebuffing a suspect’s invocation of his or her constitutional rights will convince the suspect that such rights are illusory.” Mallott v. State, 608 P.2d 737, 741-42 (Alaska 1980).
I think People v. Harris, 552 P.2d 10 (Colo.1976), helpful on the point of the “equivocal request.”3 The accused there asked when he could see an attorney (apparently the same sort of “general inquiry” which may have occurred here) and was told (apparently truthfully) that “Monday morning” was the earliest point at which one would be available. Id. at 11. The accused subsequently had his rights read and then signed a waiver, just as Giacomaz-zi did here. Nevertheless, the Colorado court suppressed the statement:
*227Admittedly, the demand was not in the most sophisticated or legally proper form, but it was adequate. At that point, all interrogation should have ceased until an attorney was made available to the accused. The fact that the accused did not ‘demand’ an attorney does not persuade us that he was not exercising his rights. The accused was young, timid, and inexperienced in such situations; his failure to make a forceful demand for counsel does not dilute the fact that he made a request. The failure of the detectives to honor his request by immediately discontinuing their interrogation violated the defendant’s constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona.
Id. at 12.
I do not take issue with the court’s pronouncements that a police officer may seek clarification of the suspect’s desires if the inquiry concerning counsel is equivocal. However, neither version of the testimony presented that situation. Lt. Olson testified that no inquiry at all was made, and Giacomazzi testified that a direct inquiry was made. Thus, I do not think that rule applicable in this situation.
I would remand the case for more explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law, in light of the discussion above.

. Lt. Olson’s testimony was that Giacomazzi had not asked when he might see an attorney, or how long he would be kept before he could see an attorney. Lt. Olson testified that had such an inquiry been made, he would not have pursued any more questioning until Giacomaz-zi wanted to talk.

. Although the superior court subsequently explicated its conclusions at the prodding of defense counsel, it still concluded that, although there had been a “general inquiry,” it had not been of “sufficient significance” to have alerted Lt. Olson to the need for making a response. Again, I cannot tell whether this conclusion is one of law which might be affected by Edwards, or one of fact.

. I thus disagree with the majority’s distinguishing Harris on the basis that that case involved delayed access to an attorney. I think the excerpts from the opinion quoted in the text demonstrate that the court’s main concern was not the delay, but the nature of the inquiry made. On the latter point, I find the two cases very similar.