Monday, April 8, 2013

Colorado Supreme Court People v. Luna-Solis 12SA75

Decision here.

   This case gets complicated because there are multiple agencies involved.  It began as two separate kidnapping and rape investigations involving the same suspects in different jurisdictions.  The incidents occurred in 2002 and 2003 in Denver and Aurora.  During each crime, multiple suspects would abduct a woman late at night, drive her somewhere secluded, rape her, and then abandon her.  In Aurora's case, DNA for one suspect was found.  In Denver's case, DNA from two suspects was found (one of which was the same as the DNA in the Aurora case).

   A CODIS hit identified Jesus Luna-Solis as the second suspect in the Denver case.  That led to more investigation of the Aurora case, including a photo lineup.  The Aurora victim identified Luna-Solis as one of her rapists.  He was arrested, charges were filed in Arapahoe County.

   Then Denver reopened their investigation.  They didn't want to rely on DNA samples analyzed by another lab, so they obtained a rule 41.1 court order to obtain a sample of Luna-Solis' DNA.  Luna-Solis was in custody in Arapahoe county, and they went there to do their thing.  

   Before obtaining the DNA sample, they tried to interrogate him (even though there is Colorado Supreme Court precedent which prohibits custodial interrogations during the execution of a 41.1 order... more on that in a minute).  They told him they wanted to talk about a 2002 sex assault, and he said he should probably have a lawyer.  The detectives started to pack up their recording equipment, but Luna-Solis started talking about the case without any prompting or encouragement from them.  So they read him the Miranda warnings, he waived his rights, and they had their interrogation.  During that interrogation, Luna-Solis made some incriminating statements which were only relevant to the Aurora case (he admitted to driving a type of car that was used in the Aurora case.  The Denver victim wasn't able to identify the car).  After the interrogation, the detectives collected the DNA sample.

   The prosecution for the Aurora case tried to introduce evidence from the Denver investigation.  The trial court suppressed the DNA evidence and the statements Luna-Solis made to the Denver detectives, and the prosecution appealed.

   The DNA part gets a little technical, and has to do with a prosecutor's discover obligations and when a 41.1 nontestimonial identification order is appropriate vs. when a rule 16 nontestimonial identification order is appropriate.  Most cops don't really need to know that, so I'll just say that the trial court's decision was reversed and you can find out why in the court case.  On to the good stuff: custodial interrogation.

   There are a couple of different reasons why his statements would be suppressed.  One is an issue with how the 41.1 was handled, the other is an issue with his right to counsel.

   So rule 41.1 allows us to take someone into custody without probable cause for the limited purpose of obtaining physical evidence that would tie them to a crime (like fingerprints, or pictures).  After that, they have to be released (unless there is now probable cause to arrest them).  Since they are being taken into custody without probable cause, the Colorado Supreme Court says that even if they waive Miranda a suspect may not be subjected to custodial interrogation during the execution of a 41.1 order.  Doing so is a violation of their constitutional rights, and the statements will be suppressed even if they are voluntary.

   In this case, Luna-Solis was interrogated before the 41.1 order was executed, though.  The police didn't have to take him into custody to serve the order, he was already being held for a different offense than the one they were investigating.  So they narrowly avoided violating his rights with that one (very narrowly... the Chief Justice wrote a dissenting opinion which says he would have found that this WAS a violation and therefore suppressed the statements).

   As far as the right to counsel goes, there is no question that Luna-Solis' statements were voluntary and in compliance with Miranda.  The police scrupulously honored Luna-Solis' initial request for counsel, but he reapproached them.  He was informed of and waived his rights, including his right to counsel.  However, the trial court held that the statements were still inadmissible because the Denver police were interrogating him (at least in part) about an Aurora case where charges had already been filed and where Luna-Solis already had an attorney who had not been informed that he was being interrogated now.  The court reasoned that Luna-Solis could not at that point waive his right to counsel with regards to the Aurora case.

   The Supreme Court saw it otherwise.  A defendant's right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment is in no way superior to his right to counsel as implied by the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  The difference is that the 6th Amendment right attaches once charges have been filed and is specific to each offense, where the 5th Amendment right is more generalized.  But they can both be waived, and a valid Miranda waiver serves to waive both of them. So since the detectives did comply with Miranda and Luna-Solis' statements were voluntary, once the interrogation led to the Aurora case they were still free to keep digging.

   The suppression order was reversed, and the case sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

No comments:

Post a Comment