Santistevan was being investigated for a series of robberies, and was arrested after turning himself in on an unrelated warrant. An FBI agent met with Santistevan after he was arrested to try to obtain a statement, but Santistevan refused.
A few days later, the agent got a call from Santistevan's girlfriend who said that Santistevan now wished to talk. While the agent was on his way to the jail, a lawyer called him and told him that she represented Santistevan and that Santistevan did not wish to speak to him without counsel. She also said that she had given Santistevan a letter to give to the FBI agent if he did go to the jail (is anyone else sick of this?).
The agent went to the jail anyway, and asked Santistevan about the letter. Santistevan handed him a letter from the attorney which said about what you'd expect. The agent explained to Santistevan that he had been told by an attorney not to talk, but that it was all up to him, and asked him if he wanted to talk. Santistevan said that he did want to talk, and then waived Miranda, and then made some incriminating statements.
Santistevan's statements were suppressed, and the prosecution appealed. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Santistevan's lawyer was not able to invoke Miranda on his behalf, the invocation of his rights had to come from him (so the agent was good to go with the interview after the phone call). That said, by handing the letter to the agent, Santistevan was invoking his rights even though he didn't say anything at all. And this invocation was in no way ambiguous, so the agent should not have asked questions to clarify Santistevan's intent and also should not have conducted the interrogation. The suppression order was affirmed.
The prosecution also argued that Santistevan wasn't in custody at the time, but the Court disagreed and held that he was in custody and subjected to custodial interrogation (I think the prosection might have been trying to treat this like Howes v Fields, but being in jail for a few days isn't the same thing as being in the middle of a prison sentence). The Court recognized that someone who has invoked their rights may later change their mind and waive them, but that they have to reapproach the police with this new waiver (the police can't be the ones to reinitiate interrogation). But that fact isn't relevant to the court's analysis here, since whether Santistevan initiated contact with the police (through his girlfriend) or not, he reinvoked his rights once the agent showed up to actually interrogate him.
No comments:
Post a Comment