Court Opinion

ID: 9366578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 06:04:56.777956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:53.633016
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                   revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                    UNPUBLISHED
                                                                    January 26, 2023
                Plaintiff-Appellant,

v                                                                   No. 359394
                                                                    Wayne Circuit Court
DANIEL DELATORRE,                                                   LC No. 21-001138-01-FC

                Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., and CAVANAGH and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        When police elicit a confession from a defendant in custody before any Miranda1 warning,
and then elicit a similar confession after a Miranda warning, does the second confession have to
be suppressed? As explained here, the second confession must be suppressed when “the two-step
interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning” and
curative measures were not taken. Missouri v Seibert, 542 US 600, 622; 124 S Ct 2601; 159 L Ed
2d 643 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Under this standard, the trial court suppressed
defendant’s post-Miranda confession, and we find no error requiring reversal and affirm.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

        A fight broke out between two groups of people at a nightclub, and the victim was allegedly
involved in the altercation when it continued onto the street outside. As the victim was standing
in the street, a silver pickup truck with only one working taillight struck him and ran him over.
The truck then sped off. This was recorded on security footage by a nearby business. The victim
was taken to a hospital, where he died a few days later from his injuries.

       The police watched the security footage, and, several hours after the hit and run, Detroit
Police Sergeant Samuel Mackie spotted a truck that matched the description of the truck in the
video. Defendant was driving the truck when Sergeant Mackie pulled the truck over, and there

1
    Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).

                                                -1-
were no other passengers in the truck. Sergeant Mackie requested that a Spanish-speaking officer
assist him because it was clear to Sergeant Mackie that English was not defendant’s primary
language. Detroit Police Officer Timothy Murray responded that he was fluent in Spanish and
English, but he could not translate “legal jargon” into Spanish. When Officer Murray arrived,
defendant was handcuffed and sitting on the street curb. Officer Murray’s body-camera footage
recorded him assisting Sergeant Mackie and other officers in communicating with defendant. The
body-camera footage demonstrated that defendant was surrounded by at least four officers at all
times during his questioning, and an officer was physically holding defendant’s arm for more than
10 minutes.

        Sergeant Mackie, through Officer Murray’s translations, began by asking defendant where
and with whom he lived. Sergeant Mackie’s questions clearly insinuated that there was an
accomplice with defendant in the video. Defendant, while handcuffed, retrieved his phone from
his pocket and unlocked it to get his roommate’s contact information. Sergeant Mackie then said
“let me see” and took the phone from defendant’s hand. The officers briefly looked through the
contact information on defendant’s phone, and the phone locked itself after not being used for a
few seconds. Sergeant Mackie then asked defendant for the phone’s passcode. Once the phone
was unlocked again, Sergeant Mackie asked defendant which number was his roommate’s number
and he then asked Officer Murray to translate the information on the phone. After reading through
defendant’s text messages, Sergeant Mackie exclaimed that it “sounded like” defendant was selling
drugs.

        Thirteen minutes after Officer Murray began translating for Sergeant Mackie, Sergeant
Mackie told defendant that “they knew what he did,” and that they wanted to know “who did you
hit.” Defendant responded by saying, “just tell me what I did” because he did not “know what was
going on.” The officers asked him if he was driving the truck in the early morning hours, and
defendant responded that he was driving the truck. Sergeant Mackie then instructed Officer
Murray to tell defendant that he was “going to lock him up for homicide.” Sergeant Mackie asked
again, “You were driving the truck? You ran the guy over?” Defendant nodded his head in
agreement, and then answered that he did not know whom he hit. Defendant insisted that he was
driving the truck and he was alone, even though officers asked who else was in the video with him.

        Defendant offered a full admission, before being read his Miranda rights, 15 minutes after
Officer Murray first began translating for Sergeant Mackie. Sergeant Mackie continued to ask
who else was driving the truck, and he warned defendant that the police were going to check the
truck for fingerprints. Twenty minutes after Officer Murray began translating for Sergeant
Mackie, defendant offered another confession that he was driving the truck and hit the victim.
Sergeant Mackie then spoke with Officer Murray, saying, “Looking at the video, he’s not the
driver. I don’t want to see this guy get locked up for something he didn’t do.” Sergeant Mackie
then instructed the officers to put defendant in the back of a patrol car.

       Sergeant Mackie then found online a Miranda-rights warning in Spanish, and he had
Officer Murray translate it back to him in English to double-check that it was a proper warning.
Sergeant Mackie then instructed Officer Murray to read the Miranda rights in Spanish to defendant
because they were going to ask defendant “again if he was the driver.” Twenty-eight minutes after
Officer Murray first began translating for Sergeant Mackie, Officer Murray advised defendant of
his Miranda rights, and defendant indicated that he understood his rights. Sergeant Mackie asked

                                               -2-
defendant to explain again what occurred, and defendant stated that he and his friends got into a
fight at the nightclub. Defendant continued that while he was driving his truck, the victim got in
the way and he hit him. Defendant said he asked bystanders if the victim was injured, and that
they told him that they would take the victim to the hospital. Defendant was charged with first-
degree murder, MCL 750.316, failure to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in death, MCL
257.617, and assault with a dangerous weapon, MCL 750.82.

        The district court ruled that all of defendant’s statements were inadmissible, but the district
court otherwise bound defendant over on evidence that is not pertinent to this appeal. After
defendant was bound over, the prosecutor moved the circuit court to admit the statement that
defendant gave after he had been advised of his Miranda rights, and defendant moved to suppress
that statement.

        The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing to address the competing motions, and it
issued a written opinion concerning defendant’s statements. It specifically found:

               While the testimony and evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearing
       seem[] to reflect a sincere belief by Sgt. Mackie that someone other than Mr.
       Delatorre struck and severely injured the victim, it is also clear that Sgt. Mackie
       knew or had reason to believe that Mr. Delatorre may have been involved in an
       altercation that led up to the incident under investigation. After a prolonged series
       of questions, Sgt. Mackie instructed Officer Murray to tell Mr. Delatorre that Sgt.
       Mackie knew that Mr. Delatorre was at the Caribbean night club the previous night.
       Sgt. Mackie also had Officer Murray tell Mr. Delatorre that Mr. Delatorre needed
       to stop lying. After Sgt. Mackie asked for the identity of the person driving the
       vehicle that struck the victim the previous evening, Mr. Delatorre admitted that he
       was the driver. At that point, Sgt. Mackie did not cease questioning; but rather, he
       advised Mr. Delatorre that he would be locked up for homicide and continued to
       ask numerous questions about the incident without advising Mr. Delatorre of his
       Miranda rights. It was only after Mr. Delatorre provided more details about his
       involvement and again admitted that he was the driver that he was placed in the rear
       seat of a patrol vehicle and advised of his Miranda rights in Spanish. Mr. Delatorre
       verbally indicated that he understood his Miranda rights, agreed to respond to
       questions, and again admitted that he was the driver of the truck that struck and
       injured the victim.

               Assuming, arguendo, that Sgt. Mackie’s questions to Mr. Delatorre were
       part of an effort to identify and apprehend someone other than Mr. Delatorre and
       not a deliberate effort [to] undermine Miranda by engaging in a two-step
       interrogation that was the center of the Seibert decision, after Mr. Delatorre
       admitted that he was the driver of the truck that struck and severely injured the
       victim, questioning should have ceased until Defendant was advised of his Miranda
       rights. Sgt. Mackie’s decision not to provide Miranda warnings to Mr. Delatorre
       and to instead continue questioning makes this case distinguishable from the facts
       in [Oregon v Elstad, 470 US 298, 309; 105 S CT 1285; 84 L Ed 2d 222 (1985)] and
       substantially similar to the facts in Seibert.

                                                 -3-
               In this case, during the second round of questioning Mr. Delatorre was
       asked to repeat the admissions that he made before he was provided with his
       Miranda rights, there was no break in questioning between the first interrogation
       and the post-Miranda questions, the same officers were involved in both
       interrogations, and the post-Miranda questions were, in essence, a continuation of
       the questioning. While Justice Kennedy did not adopt the multi-part test advanced
       by the majority in Seibert, it also clear that the curative measures referenced by
       Justice Kennedy were not utilized in this case. There was not a substantial break
       in time and circumstances between the prewarning statement and the Miranda
       warning or an additional warning of the likely inadmissibility of the prewarning
       statement. Moreover, in that there was no evidence that Mr. Delatorre had prior
       contacts with law enforcement or the justice system, one cannot assume that he
       understood his Miranda rights before this incident and knowingly waived them.

        Ultimately, the circuit court held that Seibert required suppression of defendant’s statement
after he was advised of his Miranda rights because it was a continuation of the officer’s questioning
before defendant had been advised of his rights, and the officers had not taken curative measures
to ensure defendant’s rights. This Court granted leave to consider the prosecutor’s interlocutory
appeal. People v Daniel Delatorre, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 15,
2022 (Docket No. 359394).

                                          II. ANALYSIS

        This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress. People v Hyde,
285 Mich App 428, 436; 775 NW2d 833 (2009). It also reviews de novo questions of constitutional
law. People v Sadows, 283 Mich App 65, 67; 768 NW2d 93 (2009). A trial court’s findings of
fact are reviewed for clear error. Hyde, 285 Mich App at 436. “A finding is clearly erroneous if,
after reviewing the entire record, this Court is definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court
made a mistake.” People v Swenor, 336 Mich App 550, 563-564; 971 NW2d 33 (2021).

        Defendant made several inculpatory statements, both before and after being advised of his
Miranda rights. “Miranda warnings are not required unless the accused is subject to a custodial
interrogation.” People v Steele, 292 Mich App 308, 316; 806 NW2d 753 (2011). “Generally, a
custodial interrogation is a questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the accused has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant
way.” Id. Defendant was flanked by multiple police officers, he was put in handcuffs behind his
back, and his arm was physically held by an officer during most of the questioning. The prosecutor
correctly concedes that defendant was in custody. Therefore, defendant was entitled to be advised
of his Miranda rights prior to any questioning by the police here.

        Even though the police improperly questioned defendant without advising him of his
Miranda rights, the police’s error does not necessarily bar the use of subsequent inculpatory
statements made by defendant after he had been advised of his rights. “Though Miranda requires
that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement
should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made.”
Elstad, 470 US at 309.

                                                -4-
       In Elstad, 470 US at 301, the defendant, without being advised of his Miranda rights,
confirmed to the police that he had been to the scene of a burglary. The police then arrested the
defendant and took him to the police station where he provided a full confession after he was
advised of his Miranda rights. Id. The Elstad Court held that the subsequent confession was
admissible because it was not a consequence of the prior Miranda violation, and it reasoned that
even in extreme cases “in which police forced a full confession from the accused through
unconscionable methods of interrogation, the Court has assumed that the coercive effect of the
confession could, with time, be dissipated.” Id. at 311-312, 318. Thus, a violation of Miranda
need not be fatal to the prosecutor’s use of subsequent inculpatory statements in all cases.

        The United States Supreme Court returned to the issue in Missouri v Seibert. In that case,
the Court considered the constitutionality of “interrogating in successive, unwarned and warned
phases.” Seibert, 542 US at 609. The police admitted that they deliberately used a “two-stage
interrogation” where they first elicited a confession from the defendant without advising her of her
Miranda rights, and then they followed up with questioning when they elicited the same confession
after advising the defendant of her Miranda rights. Id. at 610-611. One officer described this as
a technique specifically designed to evade the requirements of Miranda. Id. at 611.

       The Seibert Court was unable to reach a majority consensus, and instead its decision was
fragmented into a four-justice plurality, separate concurrences from Justices Kennedy and Breyer,
and a three-justice dissent. Although the Seibert plurality and Justice Kennedy agreed in the
outcome, their analyses differed.

        The Seibert plurality stated:

        The threshold issue when interrogators question first and warn later is thus whether
        it would be reasonable to find that in these circumstances the warnings could
        function ‘effectively’ as Miranda requires. Could the warnings effectively advise
        the suspect that he had a real choice about giving an admissible statement at that
        juncture? Could they reasonably convey that he could choose to stop talking even
        if he had talked earlier? For unless the warnings could place a suspect who has just
        been interrogated in a position to make such an informed choice, there is no
        practical justification for accepting the formal warnings as compliance with
        Miranda, or for treating the second stage of interrogation as distinct from the first,
        unwarned and inadmissible segment. [Id. at 611-612 (opinion by Souter, J.).]

         The plurality went on to determine that advising a defendant of her Miranda rights, in the
middle of the interrogation, is not effective unless “a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes
would [] have understood them to convey a message that she retained a choice about continuing
to talk.” Id. at 617. In reaching this conclusion, the plurality identified five facts that distinguished
Seibert from other cases, like Elstad, in which inculpatory statements were given both before and
after a Miranda warning.

        The contrast [in] this case reveals a series of relevant facts that bear on whether
        Miranda warnings delivered midstream could be effective enough to accomplish
        their object: the completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first
        round of interrogation, the overlapping content of the two statements, the timing

                                                  -5-
       and setting of the first and the second, the continuity of police personnel, and the
       degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous
       with the first. [Id. at 615 (cleaned up).]

        In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy agreed with the plurality that the defendant’s
post-warning confession was inadmissible, but he opined that the plurality’s test was too broad.
Id. at 622 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy favored “a narrower test applicable only in
the infrequent case, such as we have here, in which the two-step interrogation technique was used
in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning.” Id.

        In Justice Kennedy’s view, the threshold question should be whether the interrogating
officer deliberately withheld Miranda warnings “to obscure both the practical and legal
significance of the admonition when finally given.” Id. at 620 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice
Kennedy contended that “[t]he admissibility of postwarning statements should continue to be
governed by the principles of Elstad unless the deliberate two-step strategy was employed.” Id. at
622 (Kennedy, J., concurring). If the interrogating officer acted deliberately, then the postwarning
statements “must be excluded unless curative measures [were] taken” to “ensure that a reasonable
person in the suspect’s situation would understand the import and effect of the Miranda warning
and of the Miranda waiver.” Id. Justice Kennedy gave two examples of possible curative
measures: (1) “a substantial break in time and circumstances between the prewarning statement
and the Miranda warning”; and (2) “an additional warning that explains the likely inadmissibility
of the prewarning custodial statement.” Id.

        The plurality and Justice Kennedy’s concurrence differ in the threshold question that would
trigger scrutiny beyond Elstad’s analysis. The plurality’s test applies to all situations in which a
confession is elicited by police interrogation both before and after a defendant is advised of the
Miranda rights, regardless of any intent by police to skirt around Miranda:

       The unwarned interrogation was conducted in the station house, and the questioning
       was systematic, exhaustive, and managed with psychological skill. When the
       police were finished there was little, if anything, of incriminating potential left
       unsaid. The warned phased of questioning proceeded after a pause of only 15 to 20
       minutes, in the same place as the unwarned segment. When the same officer who
       had conducted the first phased recited the Miranda warnings, he said nothing to
       counter the probable misimpression that the advice that anything [the defendant]
       said could be used against her also applied to the details of the inculpatory statement
       previously elicited. [Id. at 616.]

                                              * * *

       The impression that the further questioning was a mere continuation of the earlier
       questions and responses was fostered by references back to the confession already
       given. It would have been reasonable to regard the two sessions as parts of a
       continuum, in which it would have been unnatural to refuse to repeat at the second
       stage what had been said before. These circumstances must be seen as challenging
       the comprehensibility and efficacy of the Miranda warnings to the point that a

                                                -6-
       reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes would not have understood them to convey
       a message that she retained a choice about continuing to talk. [Id. at 616-617.]

        This differs from Justice Kennedy’s approach, which only applies to situations when the
police have undertaken a deliberate strategy to undermine Miranda protections:

               The plurality concludes that whenever a two-stage interview occurs,
       admissibility of the postwarning statement should depend on “whether [the]
       Miranda warnings delivered midstream could have been effective enough to
       accomplish their object” given the specific facts of the case. This test envisions an
       objective inquiry from the perspective of the suspect, and applies in the case of both
       intentional and unintentional two-stage interrogations. In my view, this test cuts
       too broadly. Miranda’s clarity is one of its strengths, and a multifactor test that
       applies to every two-stage interrogation may serve to undermine that clarity. I
       would apply a narrower test applicable only in the infrequent case, such as we have
       here, in which the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to
       undermine the Miranda warning. [Id. at 621-622 (Kennedy, J., concurring)
       (cleaned up).]

         Federal circuit courts are divided on which approach is the controlling one. See, e.g.,
United States v Guillen, 995 F3d 1095, 1116 (CA 10, 2021) (favoring Justice Kennedy’s
concurrence); United States v Heron, 564 F3d 879, 884-885 (CA 7, 2009) (favoring the plurality
opinion). There is no controlling precedent in this State, though most panels have relied on Justice
Kennedy’s more narrow concurrence. See, e.g., People v Root, unpublished per curiam opinion
of the Court of Appeals, issued August 31, 2017 (Docket No. 331123), p 9 (“In this case, the
evidence does not suggest that the detectives engaged in a deliberate two-stage interrogation
technique designed to evade the requirements of Miranda.”); People v Bush, unpublished per
curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued June 27, 2017 (Docket No. 330589), p 15 (“If the
police deliberately refrain from advising a defendant of his rights in order to obtain a confession
and, after obtaining the confession, then advise the defendant of his rights and obtain the same
confession, the Miranda warning is ineffective, and the postwarning statement is inadmissible.”);
People v Mancill, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 26, 2016
(Docket No. 325641), p 8 (“If, however, the police deliberately refrain from advising a defendant
of his rights in order to obtain a confession and, having once obtained the confession, then advise
the defendant of his rights and obtain the same confession, the Miranda warning is ineffective and
the postwarning statement is inadmissible.”)

       Although we recognize that the bench and bar would benefit from clarity on which
approach is the appropriate one in Michigan, we cannot provide that clarity here. This is because
under either approach, the police officers’ actions require the exclusion of defendant’s statements.
Any analysis with regard to which approach is the proper one would be mere dicta. Accordingly,
we assume without deciding that Justice Kennedy’s more narrow standard is the controlling one.

        The record, as set forth by the circuit court, makes plain that the police engaged in a
calculated, two-stage interrogation of defendant that was intended to elicit incriminating evidence
from him. Specifically, defendant was asked to repeat his inculpatory statements, there was no
break in between the police asking defendant questions before and after defendant was advised of

                                                -7-
his Miranda rights, and the same officers were involved in the questioning. The circuit court
recognized that, even if it assumed that the police were not deliberately trying to undermine
defendant’s Miranda rights, the police should have ceased questioning and advised defendant of
his Miranda rights as soon as he made inculpatory statements.

        When reviewing the record, it is clear that the police waited nearly 15 minutes to advise
defendant of his rights after he had already confessed, and they continued asking defendant
questions that elicited inculpatory answers before advising him of his Miranda rights. There is
also no question that the police officers’ questions were calculated to elicit inculpatory responses,
even if they assumed that defendant would not be admitting to the crimes for which he is now
charged. This is exemplified by the fact that the officers went through defendant’s phone and
insinuated that defendant was dealing drugs after translating his text messages. The police also
asked defendant about those text messages without advising him of his Miranda rights.

        The circumstances in this case are not akin to the facts in Elstad, where the officers may
not have realized the suspect was in custody or that warnings would be required. In this case,
defendant’s subsequent confession was clearly a consequence of his first confession that was in
violation of his Miranda rights. Additionally, the nature of the questions that the officers asked,
and the answers that defendant gave, clearly should have been done within a Miranda context.
This is unlike the situation in Elstad, where the officers could not reasonably have known that their
questions would elicit a confession. There was also no substantial break in the time between the
confessions, or the scene of the confession, by which the coercive effect of the first confession
would have dissipated.

        Instead, these facts trigger the analysis provided by Justice Kennedy in Seibert because a
two-step strategy, with questions calculated to elicit inculpatory statements, was employed by the
officers. The record shows that the interrogating officer acted deliberately by asking questions
that were calculated to elicit a confession, even if those questions were attempting to elicit a
confession to a crime for which defendant was not charged. Additionally, the questions and
answers that were provided before defendant was advised of his Miranda rights were detailed and
complete, asking defendant if he was driving the truck when it struck the victim. In fact, the
officers treated the second round of questions as continuous with the first, as exemplified by
Sergeant Mackie’s exclamation that they were “going to ask [defendant] again if he was the driver”
after advising him of his Miranda rights. Lastly, the officers who began the initial questioning
also advised defendant of his Miranda rights, and also continued to interrogate him after that
advisement.

        There was not a substantial break in time and circumstances between the prewarning
statement and the Miranda warning as defendant was placed in the back of a police car, advised
of his Miranda rights, and re-questioned within 20 minutes. There was also no explanation, or
additional warning, explaining to defendant that his prewarning statements were likely
inadmissible. Therefore, there were not curative measures taken to ensure that a reasonable person
in defendant’s situation would understand the effect of the Miranda warning.

                                       III. CONCLUSION

                                                -8-
        For the reasons state here, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the circuit
court erred when finding that the police officers engaged in a calculated two-stage interrogation.
Further, the circuit court did not err when granting defendant’s motion to suppress because, when
applying Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, there was not “a substantial break in time and
circumstances between the prewarning statement and the Miranda warning,” and there was not
“an additional warning that explain[ed] the likely inadmissibility of the prewarning custodial
statement[s].” Seibert, 542 US at 622 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Therefore, we affirm the circuit
court’s suppression of defendant’s statements.

                                                                /s/ Brock A. Swartzle
                                                                /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
                                                                /s/ James Robert Redford

                                                  -9-