Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Eighth circuit takes on Seibert issue

Eighth Circuit rules that interrogation is custodial if suspect appears for police questioning under coercion of probable parole violation; Following Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600(2004), State must prove that confessions following midstream Miranda warnings were voluntaryDecision of the Day: Interesting Mid-Stream Miranda Case Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Iowa Southern District opinion and rules that parolees appearance at police station was not voluntary, therefore police had to give miranda warnings. United States v Ollie No. 05-2503 Southern District of Iowa, 3-31. Eighth Circuit finds a parolee must give statements to police or else face parole violations. Eighth circuit also decides that under Seibert, the state has the burden to prove statements following a midstream Miranda warning was voluntary, assuming that Justice Kennedy's concurring view would apply {purposefuly circumvention of Miranda using two step interrogation}: "The parole officer testified that it would have been a violation of his parole for Mr. Ollie to refuse to go to the meeting and that a refusal could have led to Mr. Ollie's parole being revoked, and Mr. Ollie testified that because of this order he felt that he had no choice but to meet with Chief McNeill. Faced with such pressures, we think that Mr. Ollie had little choice but to comply. hold that the failure to advise Mr. Ollie of his rights pursuant to Miranda requires the suppression of his initial oral confession to Chief McNeill." On Seibert issue, court would follow Justice Kennedy's concurring view and suppress post-warning statements only where the police intentionally used the two-step interrogation technique to render the Miranda warnings ineffective. Such statements would be inadmissible unless the police took curative measures thatwould ensure that a reasonable person would understand his or her rights. Id. at 621-22 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment). when a defendant moves to suppress a post-warning statement that he contends was given as part of a question-first interrogation, the prosecution must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officer's failure to provide warnings at the outset of questioning was not part of a deliberate attempt to circumvent Miranda. Placing that burden on the prosecution is consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions that require the government to prove the admissibility of a confession before it may come into evidence.

No comments: