Photo Courtesy of CCSNLUJ

In State v. Gardner, the WA Court of Appeals held that if a suspect makes an unequivocal request for an attorney predicated on a condition (here, “if I am a suspect, then I want an attorney”) it is a conditional invocation which the police must respect and the interrogation must cease pursuant to Miranda.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Gardner was a suspect in a homicide. He was contacted by police. They handcuffed Gardner, placed in the back of a patrol vehicle, and read his Miranda rights.  Gardner told a detective that if he was a suspect, he wanted an attorney. Although police admitted that Gardner was a suspect at the time he made this statement, they did not end the interrogation or provide Gardner with an attorney.

At trial, the judge denied Gardner’s motion to suppress evidence from the subsequent interrogation and concluded that Gardner’s request for an attorney was equivocal. As a result, Gardner’s recorded interview was admitted as evidence. He was found guilty of first degree murder, second degree assault, first degree unlawful possession of a firearm, and felony harassment.

On appeal, Mr. Gardner argues that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights when it denied his motion to suppress his interview because detectives continued questioning him after he unequivocally requested counsel.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, the WA Court of Appeals (COA) agreed with Mr. Gardner:

“Gardner’s request for an attorney was conditional, not equivocal. Since law enforcement knew that the condition was met, they should have ceased the interrogation until Gardner was provided an attorney or reinitiated contact.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination. Accordingly, law enforcement officers are required to give Miranda warnings where an individual is subjected to custodial interrogation. Prior to being subjected to custodial interrogation, Miranda requires that an individual must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. If a suspect requests an attorney, law enforcement must stop all questioning until an attorney has been provided or the suspect reinitiates talking on their own.

However, once a suspect waives his Miranda rights, only an unequivocal request for an attorney requires law enforcement to cease questioning. The request for counsel must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would know that Miranda has been invoked.  Conversely, a request that is ambiguous or equivocal, such that a reasonable officer under the circumstances would understand that the suspect might be interested in obtaining an attorney, does not require the officer to cease questioning.

Under that analysis, the COA issued its ruling:

“Here, Gardner told law enforcement that if he was a suspect, he wanted an attorney when he was taken in for questioning on June 13. Gardner was in fact a suspect at that point. This was a conditional request—if this, then that. There was nothing ambiguous about this request. Gardner was unsure whether he was a suspect, but if he was, he wanted an attorney. Law enforcement knew that the condition had been met because they knew that Gardner was a suspect. Because law enforcement knew that the condition had been met, Gardner’s statement was a clear invocation of his right to counsel.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The COA further conclude that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the COA reversed Mr. Gardner’s guilty convictions and remanded his case for a new trial.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.