The Supreme Court of Michigan in Lansing, Mich. (Google Maps).
Police in Michigan cannot trick people into forfeiting their right to an attorney, the state's highest court of appeal ruled this week.
In a 6-1 opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court found that law enforcement cannot exploit a criminal suspect's confusion once they have already invoked their right to counsel. In turn, any statements made after invoking their right cannot be used against them.
The ruling in the case of People v. Fenderson stems from charges against Daren D. Fenderson, who was arrested by police in Detroit in connection with a murder investigation. After his arrest, Fenderson repeatedly asked for an attorney while in custody. Then, nearly three hours into a handcuffed interrogation, Detroit Police Sgt. Reginald Beasley said either "You don't got one," or "You don't get one."
But law enforcement's unconstitutional actions did not end there, the court noted.
"Defendant expressed confusion, and Beasley told defendant that police tried to call a lawyer but nobody was available and defendant had no money," the court summary of the case explains. "Defendant asked whether he could use the money he had in his possession when he was arrested, and Beasley said that he couldn't use that money."
As the interrogation went on, Fenderson asked police why he was arrested. This time, Beasley kept mum and said he could not say anything since Fenderson had invoked his right to an attorney. Instead, police crafted an elaborate plan to get the defendant to give up his rights.
The court describes the police plan in detail:
Beasley stated that defendant had asked for an attorney and that he could not speak to defendant without one, "[s]o the story you got is the story we gon' go with." Defendant again expressed confusion, and Beasley asked defendant what he was confused about. Defendant responded that he didn't know what was going on and that police hadn't told him anything. Beasley stated that police would take defendant back to the Detroit Detention Center and submit a warrant that a prosecutor would review. Defendant told Beasley that he didn't know what that meant, and Beasley responded that defendant had requested an attorney so he couldn't speak to defendant about the case[.]
The law enforcement scheme ultimately worked as Fenderson repeatedly said he wanted "to get this over with," while Beasley kept suggesting Fenderson had to waive his Miranda rights to talk at all.
Then another sergeant entered and made Fenderson, who by this point had started crying, waive his rights. After that, he made incriminating statements.
Such law enforcement efforts violate both the federal and state constitutions, the Wolverine State Supreme Court determined.
"Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda were violated," the summary reads. "The statements police made in this case after defendant's invocation of counsel can reasonably be understood as suggesting that defendant's right to have an attorney present during questioning was dependent on his ability to retain counsel through his own funds; these statements are not consistent with Miranda's assertions that suspects have a right to counsel and that, if they cannot afford counsel, counsel will be provided."
At the trial court level, the statements were suppressed, but prosecutors appealed and had the suppression ruling overturned. The intervening court placed great emphasis on the police plan to return the defendant to jail and his written and verbal waivers.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, expressing its view in a chapter heading: "Defendant was not provided counsel and was told he did not have and could not obtain counsel."
"Instead, after having defendant wait two and a half hours for an attorney, police engaged defendant in a conversation that the trial court described as a 'scare tactic' that undermined defendant's assertion of the right to counsel," the opinion reads. "We consider police statements 'in their totality' when assessing 'whether the warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required.'"
In Fenderson's case, the majority reasoned, police inexcusably exploited the defendant's confusion and violated his rights.
"[T]he police here erred by suggesting that defendant could not be questioned with an attorney present because he did not have the money to hire one," the opinion goes on. "This confusing and inaccurate information undermined the advice of rights previously read to defendant."
The opinion also quotes from a New Jersey appellate case that states the relevant constitutional rule in plain language: "A police officer cannot directly contradict, out of one side of his mouth, the Miranda warnings just given out of the other."
The ACLU of Michigan praised the ruling.
"Protections against self-incrimination and guaranteeing the right to counsel are fundamental to our criminal legal system," Phil Mayor, the group's deputy legal director, said in a press release.