Detroit police violated an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights when they continued to question him after he asked for an attorney, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, reversing the Michigan Court of Appeals and affirming a trial court order.
In People v. Fenderson (SC Docket No. 167391), Daren Fenderson was being interrogated when he asked for an attorney. When an officer questioning him returned, the officer said an attorney wasn’t available and they could take him back to the detention center to wait.
Fenderson said he would continue to talk but expressed confusion several times. An officer again restated his Miranda rights, and the questioning continued and he made incriminating statements.
A trial is pending on charges for first-degree murder, felony firearm and escape from lawful custody.
A 6-1 Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Kimberly Thomas, ruled statements made to police by Fenderson before charges were filed should be suppressed. The ruling affirms a decision from the trial court that a split Court of Appeals panel reversed.
“In this case, after defendant invoked his right to counsel, police tried to obtain an attorney for him. They returned empty-handed, over two and a half hours later, telling defendant that he did not have an attorney and could not use the money taken from him during arrest to obtain one,” Thomas wrote. “Thereafter, in response to defendant’s questions about what was going on, police resumed the interrogation.”
Thomas further wrote that although police read defendant’s Miranda rights again, that does not meet the state’s burden to show the statements are admissible.
“Defendant was already aware of his rights. He referenced his right to an attorney multiple times throughout the interrogation. He expressed no initial confusion about his ability to invoke that right,” Thomas wrote. “He clearly did invoke that right after the tone of the interrogation had shifted. But defendant was given no reason to believe that if he were to invoke his right again, the outcome would be any different. He could ask for an attorney, but one would not be provided. By undermining the advice of rights and implying that the right to have an attorney present during questioning was predicated on the ability to pay for an attorney, police in this case violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda.”
Justice Brian Zahra was the sole dissent to the ruling. He wrote he would have affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling allowing the statements to stand.
“The police did everything they were constitutionally required to do in this case,” Zahra wrote. “They ceased questioning immediately once defendant requested an attorney; they attempted to locate an attorney for defendant; they informed defendant that they could not question defendant any further about the case because they could not find an attorney to counsel defendant during the interrogation; when asked, they explained to defendant what the next steps in the process would be; and when defendant stated that he wanted to talk without an attorney, they asked defendant to make sure that is what he wanted, repeatedly told him not to feel compelled to speak to them, and informed him of his rights again before accepting his waiver.”
In People v. Fenderson (SC Docket No. 167391), Daren Fenderson was being interrogated when he asked for an attorney. When an officer questioning him returned, the officer said an attorney wasn’t available and they could take him back to the detention center to wait.
Fenderson said he would continue to talk but expressed confusion several times. An officer again restated his Miranda rights, and the questioning continued and he made incriminating statements.
A trial is pending on charges for first-degree murder, felony firearm and escape from lawful custody.
A 6-1 Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Kimberly Thomas, ruled statements made to police by Fenderson before charges were filed should be suppressed. The ruling affirms a decision from the trial court that a split Court of Appeals panel reversed.
“In this case, after defendant invoked his right to counsel, police tried to obtain an attorney for him. They returned empty-handed, over two and a half hours later, telling defendant that he did not have an attorney and could not use the money taken from him during arrest to obtain one,” Thomas wrote. “Thereafter, in response to defendant’s questions about what was going on, police resumed the interrogation.”
Thomas further wrote that although police read defendant’s Miranda rights again, that does not meet the state’s burden to show the statements are admissible.
“Defendant was already aware of his rights. He referenced his right to an attorney multiple times throughout the interrogation. He expressed no initial confusion about his ability to invoke that right,” Thomas wrote. “He clearly did invoke that right after the tone of the interrogation had shifted. But defendant was given no reason to believe that if he were to invoke his right again, the outcome would be any different. He could ask for an attorney, but one would not be provided. By undermining the advice of rights and implying that the right to have an attorney present during questioning was predicated on the ability to pay for an attorney, police in this case violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda.”
Justice Brian Zahra was the sole dissent to the ruling. He wrote he would have affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling allowing the statements to stand.
“The police did everything they were constitutionally required to do in this case,” Zahra wrote. “They ceased questioning immediately once defendant requested an attorney; they attempted to locate an attorney for defendant; they informed defendant that they could not question defendant any further about the case because they could not find an attorney to counsel defendant during the interrogation; when asked, they explained to defendant what the next steps in the process would be; and when defendant stated that he wanted to talk without an attorney, they asked defendant to make sure that is what he wanted, repeatedly told him not to feel compelled to speak to them, and informed him of his rights again before accepting his waiver.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
