 |
by Shaw, Bransford & Roth, P.C.
March 4, 2010
In the October 8, 2009 issue of FEDagent, we reported on the oral argument in Maryland v. Shatzer. We now report that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an opinion on the question of whether a break in questioning prohibits police from further questioning a person in custody. The Court determined that it did not. Specifically, the Court held that if the suspect has been out of custody for more than two weeks before the contested interrogation, "the court is spared the fact-intensive inquiry into whether he ever, anywhere, asserted his Miranda right to counsel." Justice Scalia authored the opinion, with six Justices joining him in full, while Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment and Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment.
In August 2003 the defendant, Michael Shatzer, who was in prison on a child sexual abuse conviction, was questioned by police about unrelated allegations that he sexually abused his 3-year-old son. Shatzer initially waived his Miranda rights, but after the officer explained what he wanted to discuss, Shatzer invoked his Miranda rights and refused to speak with the police officer and instead asked for an attorney; the officer terminated his interview of Shatzer.
In 2006, when Shatzer's son was able to make more specific allegations against Shatzer three years later, a different police officer questioned Shatzer, who was still imprisoned, on the same matter involving his then 3-year old son. After being re-advised of his Miranda rights, Shatzer waived his Miranda rights, made incriminating statements, then requested an attorney.
At the lower court, Shatzer filed a motion to suppress the two statements taken by the police in the 2006 interrogation on the basis that his prior request for counsel in the 2003 interrogation prevented further interrogation without the presence of an attorney, under the protections afforded by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). Under the Edwards rule, if a criminal suspect requests counsel, that suspect cannot be interrogated unless or until he obtains counsel or independently approaches authorities to confess or make incriminating statements. The lower court, and then the Court of Appeals, declined to recognize a break in custody exception to Edwards regarding an inmate who was subject to uninterrupted, continuous incarceration between the first invocation of the right to counsel and a second interrogation when the interrogation related to the same investigation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Shatzer argued that a lapse in time should not terminate the Edwards' presumption, because a non-arbitrary break in time would be impossible to identify. The State of Maryland argued that a break in custody or the passage of a fixed period of time could serve to make the Edwards prohibition inapplicable.
The Court determined that the Edwards prohibition against interrogation of a suspect who has invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel is inapplicable after the suspect asks for counsel, there is a break in custody or a substantial lapse in time (more than two weeks) before commencing re-interrogation pursuant to Miranda. The Court found that Shatzer's release back into the prison population constituted a break in Miranda custody. The Court explained that when previously incarcerated persons are released back into the general population, they return to their accustomed surroundings and daily routine-they regain the degree of control they had over their lives before the attempted interrogation. Further, the Court found that the period of 14 days "provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody." Thus, the "inherently compelling pressures" of custodial interrogation ended when Shatzer returned to his normal life.
Therefore, because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not prohibit re-interrogation without the presence of an attorney or the suppression of his March 2006 statements. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded it for further proceedings.
The case is Maryland v. Shatzer, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 08-680.
« back to previous page
|
|
