The Seventh Precinct of Nassau County received an anonymous tip that John Smith was growing marijuana in the back of his home, which consisted of several acres of land. To corroborate this information an officer performed and ariel search of the Smith property. During this fly-over, the officer spotted several marijuana plants. A judge issued a search warrant based on the evidence obtained from the fly-over.

Upon approaching the Smith residence with search warrant in hand, Officer Jones and Officer O'Malley confronted John's father, who consented to a search of the property. While conducting the search, Officer Jones noticed a young man running behind a shed and followed him. Upon reaching the shed, Officer Jones drew his gun, and the young man identified himself as John Smith. With his weapon still drawn, Officer Jones asked John what he was doing, to which John replied he was merely looking for his dog. Officer Jones stated that he did not believe John and asked him what he was really doing.

At this point, John broke down and explained through tears that he had been growing marijuana plants, and when he saw the officers he decided to destroy the plants. Officer Jones called Officer O'Malley over and John led them both to where he had been growing the marijuana. Officer Jones finally put his gun back into its holster and told John he was under arrest.

At the police station, John was advised of his Miranda rights for the first time. John then signed a written statement after being told things would be easier if he did so.  John was charged with cultivation and possession of marijuana. He moves to suppress the evidence based on the fact that he was not read his Miranda rights prior to the custodial interrogation that he claims took place at his home in a situation where he felt compelled to confess.

Evaluate whether John's motion to suppress will be successful.

Answer:

The investigatory stop was transformed into a custodial situation by the officer's use and display of his gun after he was assured of safety. The continued brandishing of the weapon constituted a form of physical restraint, and a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.

The confrontation with the defendant constituted an interrogation because the officer should have known his words and actions likely would elicit an incriminating response from the defendant. Where or not an officer's actions are likely to elicit an incriminating response depends on the perceptions of the defendant, not on the intentions of the police officer. In this case, the defendant testified he felt compelled to confess.

In addition, the signed confession was tainted by Smith's prior voluntary statements. Applying the totality of the circumstances test to this confession, it also appears to be involuntary. It came within a short time after the defendant was brought to the police station. The confession was received by the same officers who had obtained the previous invalid confession. The defendant also was told things would be easier if he confessed, a statement which was presumptively coercive. The overall conclusion is that the causal chain was not broken.

Accordingly the evidence should be suppressed, as the defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights until after the initial custodial interrogation, and this had the effect of tainting his subsequent written confession.

See People v. Briedenbach, 875 P.2d 879 (Colo. 1994); See also U.S. v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455 (10th Cir. 1993).

Scott Novick

Emory University School of Law