Colorado Supreme Court People v. Knedler 13SA292

Decision here.

   Knedler sometimes lived under a bridge with two other people, perhaps because the money that might have otherwise paid for a home was going towards alcohol (by his own statements, he drank about a case plus a pint of alcohol every day).  One day Knedler beat the crap out of his, uh... roommates with a stick.  He was arrested later, whilst drinking at a hair salon where he also lives sometimes.

   Couldn't have been a very upscale salon...

   Anyway, Knedler agreed to speak to investigators, but didn't want to talk in the police car.  The took him to headquarters and advised him of his rights.  He initialed every line of the waiver, said that he knew his rights, and went on to confess.  After his interrogation, the jail nurse gave him a breath test which registered a BAC of .284.  However, she noted that he was alert and oriented.

   At trial, Knedler moved to suppress his confession.  His argument was that the Miranda waiver was invalid because of his extremely high BAC.  The trial court agreed and suppressed the confession, and the people filed an interlocutory appeal.

   The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that simply having a high BAC doesn't render a waiver invalid.  The question is whether a waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (knowing and intelligent mean that the waiver is made with full understanding of the right in question and of the consequences of abandoning it.  Voluntary means that the waiver is free from governmental coercion).  These questions require the court to focus not on what a breathalyzer says, but on what the facts show regarding the defendant's cognitive ability.  Someone who is lucid and rational can validly waive their rights no matter what their actual BAC is.

   The court described some of the factors used to weigh the ability of an intoxicated person to waive his rights as: 1- whether the defendant was oriented to his or her surroundings and situation; 2- whether the defendant's answers were the responsive product of a rational thought process; 3- whether the defendant was able to appreciate the seriousness of his or her situation and the possibility of incarceration; 4- whether the defendant had the foresight to attempt to deceive the police to avoid prosecution; 5- whether the defendant expressed remorse for his or her actions; and 6- whether the defendant expressly stated that he or she understood his or her rights.

   The court also listed the following factors which are used more generally to decide whether a defendant's waiver is knowing and intelligent: 1- the length of time between the initial Miranda advisement and the interrogation; 2- whether the defendant or the interrogating officer initiated the interview; 3- whether and to what extent the interrogating officer reminded the defendant of his or her rights before the interrogation; 4- the clarity and form of the defendant's acknowledgment and waiver; 5- the defendant's background and experience with the criminal justice system; and 6- any language barriers and the defendant's age, experience, education, background, and intelligence.

   Most of those factors weighed heavily in the prosecution's favor, and the court recognized (as it has repeatedly) that there's a wide individual variation in people's ability to function after heavy drinking.  Knedler's waiver was held to be valid, and this case was send back to the trial court.