FROM THE CLASSROOM
By: Ray Hill, Professor Emeritus, Santa Rosa JC
“Its ‘402’ time, officer. Who wins, you or defense counsel”? Note: 402(b) E.C. – A pre-trial court hearing to determine the admissibility of an admission or confession.
Welcome aboard to the officers of the South Lake Tahoe Police Department. SLTPD believes in the value of timely and ongoing legal updates and has enrolled the entire agency. I trust the information you receive will give you confidence in case investigation and the recovery of evidence. Thank you for your support!
This is the thirteenth in a series of mini-articles covering basic Miranda and Confession Law. This review is equally applicable to detectives and those generalists who are assigned to investigate their own cases.
There is no civil liability exposure for a Miranda violation, standing alone. Here are some examples:
Suspects who are not given their Miranda rights cannot sue under the Title 43 – Section 1983 civil rights statute. Miranda is a “prophylactic rule” prohibiting the use of unwarned statements as evidence in court. The Miranda admonition protects a constitutional right, but the warning itself is not a right in itself that would bring about a lawsuit. “We see no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue” (Vega v. Tekoh (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2095).
Detectives investigating a double homicide ignored the defendant’s requests for counsel and pursued an unsuccessful line of questioning in an attempt to develop investigative leads. Simply ignoring an invocation of Miranda rights doesn’t violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Peo. v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 774).
However, if you cross the line and commit a Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process violation in that the manner of your questioning is so coercive that it “shocks the conscience”, then not only will a statement be suppressed, but you could be subject to a civil lawsuit as well (Title 42 Sect. 1983 USC / Henry v. Kernan (1999) 9th Cir. 197 F 3d. 1021). Examples:
After an argument over a television show, an 18-year-old defendant was arrested for strangling his 69-year-old housemate to death with an electrical cord. Defendant declined to waive his Miranda rights. A detective continued to question him. During questioning, the defendant unambiguously asked for counsel nine times. The detective told the defendant that he (the defendant) “had to talk to him (the detective) and could talk to no one else”. The detective promised to “help the defendant out” if he confessed and the system would “stick it to him” if he didn’t. Defendant remained in-custody with the detective’s statements in mind. The following day, the defendant re-contacted the detective and confessed to the crime. The day after he gave a second incriminating statement. Ignoring the defendant’s initial Miranda invocation, his repeated requests for counsel, and the coercive manner of questioning violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. All “defendant-initiated” statements, including the two follow up statements, were involuntary and inadmissible. Defendant had minimal education and intelligence and was deprived of food, water, and a bathroom break during questioning. “The consequences of the officer’s misconduct - the absolute inability to introduce the confessions at trial - is severe, but is intended to deter other officers from engaging in misconduct of this sort in the future”. This manner of questioning sets the stage for a civil liability action (Peo. v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 63).
"What the task force did constitutes a 20th century inquisitorial version of the Star Chamber". "To characterize the task force's violations of Miranda as prophylactic advisement requirements is to see a hurricane as but a movement of air"(Cooper v. Dupnik, et. seq.).
Plaintiff was arrested as the suspected "Prime Time Rapist”. Unknown at the time of arrest, he had been misidentified through an erroneous latent fingerprint match. Investigators pre-planned to ignore any request for counsel and interrogate the plaintiff until he confessed (“wear him down emotionally” and "create a sense of helplessness”). Investigators also wanted a potential impeachment statement at trial. Over a 6-hour period, multiple interrogators questioned the plaintiff using coercive tactics. He repeatedly asked for an attorney and maintained his innocence. Plaintiff was subsequently cleared of any responsibility for the crimes. He filed a “1983 Action” claiming his family suffered humiliation, he had lost his job, and was evicted from his home due to the arrest and associated publicity. 9USCA ruled the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated and a civil suit could proceed. Police officials are liable for deliberately ignoring Due Process rights. The planned police misconduct rose to the level “where the prisoner was in a totalitarian nightmare, where police no longer obeyed the Constitution, but instead followed their own judgment, treating suspects according to their whims" (Cooper v. Dupnik, 9th Cir. (1992) 963 F 2d 1220).
Defendant was arrested for robbery/homicide and given her Miranda rights. She made repeated requests for an attorney. Detectives continued questioning, telling the defendant that she could avoid a capital murder charge by confessing, they would only charge her with being an accessory to murder, she could get a better lawyer by helping herself out, and falsely told her incriminating physical evidence was found at the crime scene. 9USCA ruled this conduct was “egregious”. “The Constitution is not a set of rules that the government is free to violate”. “It may be that a suspect questioned in plain violation of well-established constitutional rights, as here, would be entitled to a summary judgment against the police officer in a Section 1983 action” (Garvin v. Farmon (2001) 9th Cir. 258 F3d 951).
Please see also Bob Phillips, Miranda and Confession Law – Fifth Edition, Pages 18, 22-28, 160-168, 246-248).
Bottom line: If you engage in unconstitutional conduct that violates the Fourteenth Amendment, you risk civil liability and associated damages could be rewarded. The “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” could belong to the plaintiff!
A closing word from my esteemed faculty colleague Bob Phillips: “Law enforcement officers, having sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this nation and California, should not themselves be purposely devising ways to bypass or ignore the Constitution or the dictates of the State and Federal Supreme Courts” (Miranda and Confession Law – Fifth Edition, Page 25).
This will be the final mini-article this series covering Miranda and Confession law. Be assured as Miranda cases arise in the future, Bob Phillips or myself will keep you updated on how to “legally obtain” admissions and confessions.
Stay Safe,
RH
