The Supreme Court of Michigan in Lansing, Mich. (Google Maps).
Michigan’s highest judicial authority has intensified protections around the right to legal representation, declaring police deception tactics illegal when it comes to a suspect’s access to an attorney. This landmark ruling from the state’s Supreme Court fortifies the integrity of legal rights during police interrogations.
Delivering a decisive 6-1 opinion, the court underscored that any ambiguity exploited by law enforcement does not nullify a suspect’s claim to an attorney once it has been asserted. Any admissions made thereafter are disqualified from being admissible in court proceedings.
This critical decision emerged from the case People v. Fenderson, involving Daren D. Fenderson, who was taken into custody by Detroit police related to a murder case. Despite Fenderson’s persistent requests for legal counsel during detention, more than two hours into the questioning, Sgt. Reginald Beasley rebuffed him with the statement, “You don’t got one,” or “You don’t get one.”
The court emphasized that such breaches of constitutional rights extend beyond initial encounters, highlighting a troubling pattern of disregard for suspects’ legal protections during police interrogations.
“Defendant expressed confusion, and Beasley told defendant that police tried to call a lawyer but nobody was available and defendant had no money,” the court summary of the case explains. “Defendant asked whether he could use the money he had in his possession when he was arrested, and Beasley said that he couldn’t use that money.”
As the interrogation went on, Fenderson asked police why he was arrested. This time, Beasley kept mum and said he could not say anything since Fenderson had invoked his right to an attorney. Instead, police crafted an elaborate plan to get the defendant to give up his rights.
The court describes the police plan in detail:
Beasley stated that defendant had asked for an attorney and that he could not speak to defendant without one, “[s]o the story you got is the story we gon’ go with.” Defendant again expressed confusion, and Beasley asked defendant what he was confused about. Defendant responded that he didn’t know what was going on and that police hadn’t told him anything. Beasley stated that police would take defendant back to the Detroit Detention Center and submit a warrant that a prosecutor would review. Defendant told Beasley that he didn’t know what that meant, and Beasley responded that defendant had requested an attorney so he couldn’t speak to defendant about the case[.]
The law enforcement scheme ultimately worked as Fenderson repeatedly said he wanted “to get this over with,” while Beasley kept suggesting Fenderson had to waive his Miranda rights to talk at all.
Then another sergeant entered and made Fenderson, who by this point had started crying, waive his rights. After that, he made incriminating statements.
Such law enforcement efforts violate both the federal and state constitutions, the Wolverine State Supreme Court determined.
“Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda were violated,” the summary reads. “The statements police made in this case after defendant’s invocation of counsel can reasonably be understood as suggesting that defendant’s right to have an attorney present during questioning was dependent on his ability to retain counsel through his own funds; these statements are not consistent with Miranda’s assertions that suspects have a right to counsel and that, if they cannot afford counsel, counsel will be provided.”
At the trial court level, the statements were suppressed, but prosecutors appealed and had the suppression ruling overturned. The intervening court placed great emphasis on the police plan to return the defendant to jail and his written and verbal waivers.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, expressing its view in a chapter heading: “Defendant was not provided counsel and was told he did not have and could not obtain counsel.”
“Instead, after having defendant wait two and a half hours for an attorney, police engaged defendant in a conversation that the trial court described as a ‘scare tactic’ that undermined defendant’s assertion of the right to counsel,” the opinion reads. “We consider police statements ‘in their totality’ when assessing ‘whether the warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required.'”
In Fenderson’s case, the majority reasoned, police inexcusably exploited the defendant’s confusion and violated his rights.
“[T]he police here erred by suggesting that defendant could not be questioned with an attorney present because he did not have the money to hire one,” the opinion goes on. “This confusing and inaccurate information undermined the advice of rights previously read to defendant.”
The opinion also quotes from a New Jersey appellate case that states the relevant constitutional rule in plain language: “A police officer cannot directly contradict, out of one side of his mouth, the Miranda warnings just given out of the other.”
The ACLU of Michigan praised the ruling.
“Protections against self-incrimination and guaranteeing the right to counsel are fundamental to our criminal legal system,” Phil Mayor, the group’s deputy legal director, said in a press release.
The post ‘Was not provided counsel’: Police cannot trick or exploit confusion to make people waive their right to an attorney, Michigan Supreme Court rules first appeared on Law & Crime.
