Court Opinion

ID: 9696024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:33:55.801049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.009900
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring specially) .
Admissibility of Mrs. Albertsen’s statements is dependent upon two separate *316facts: (1) that the officers or the polygraph operator gave her the Miranda warning, and (2) that Mrs. Albertsen took the test voluntarily in fact. The evidence shows the officers gave her the Miranda warning en route to the office of the polygraph operator. That warning includes the warning that her statements could be used against her. Hence the first fact exists. The situation is different from the two cases cited by the court in which test results were held inadmissible, People v. Algien, 501 P.2d 468 (Colo.); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 439 Pa. 34, 264 A.2d 706. In those cases the Miranda warning was not given until after the polygraph test.
Notwithstanding the Miranda warning given here, however, the evidence supports the finding of respondent judge regarding the second fact: that Mrs. Albertsen did not take .the test, and make the statements in connection with it, voluntarily in fact.
Since Mrs. Albertsen did not in fact act of her own free will, I concur in annulment of the writ.