"from being badgered by police officers." Here the suspect himself initiated
the further conversation. As the court explained:
"There are undoubtedly situations where a bare inquiry by either a
defendant or by a police officer should not be held to 'initiate'
any conversation or dialogue. There are some inquiries, such as a
request for a drink of water or a request to use a telephone, that
are so routine that they cannot be fairly said to represent a desire
on the part of an accused to open up a more generalized discussion
relating directly or indirectly to the investigation...
Such
inquiries or statements... relating to routine incidents of the
custodial relationship, will not generally 'initiate' a conversation
in the sense in which that word was used in Edwards."
c. Here, the suspect's question as to what was going to happen to him
"evidenced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the
investigation; it was not merely a necessary inquiry arising out of the
incidents of the custodial relationship.
It could reasonably have been
interpreted by the officer as relating generally to the investigation." Since
the suspect himself had initiated the further conversation, the next issue was
whether or not he had waived his rights. The court held that he did, so the
resulting confession was admissible.
d. In another case, the suspect was held to have initiated the further
conversation when he knocked on the cell door and told the police that he
wanted to make a statement. McCree v. Housewright, 689 F.2d 797 (8th Circuit,
1982).
The same was true for a suspect who said he wanted to provide
information about someone else who he felt should have been arrested. U.S. v.
Gordon, 655 F.2d 478 (2d Circuit, 1981).
e. In one case, an MPI agent stopped questioning the suspect, who said
that he wanted a lawyer. While the investigator was completing some paperwork,
the suspect asked, "how serious of an incident this was."
The investigator
replied that "recent court decisions had (sentenced) narcotic offenses to the
maximum confinement at hard labor for a period not to exceed 10 years." The
suspect asked the investigator if he thought that this was a reasonable
sentence.
The investigator replied that "four years could be a reasonable
sentence," but added that he did not make any decisions concerning that. The
suspect then said that he did not want to go to jail for "dope that was not
his," said he only had one gram, and "began to tell how he and two other
soldiers had been to Frankfurt to obtain heroin." The investigator said that
he could not talk to the suspect about the incident, since the suspect had
asked for a lawyer.
The suspect replied that although he had asked for a
lawyer, he wanted the investigator "to understand that he did not want to go to
jail for dope that was not his." The agent replied "is that right?" and the
suspect proceeded to give an account of what had happened.
The investigator
again said he was obligated to terminate the interview, since the suspect had
earlier asked for a lawyer. The suspect replied "that he did not care, that he
wanted to tell me about what had happened." The court held that the suspect
had initiated the conversation, based on his desire "to aid his cause." The
investigator had done nothing wrong: "Even after he has
MP1020
1-52
Previous Page
