Dye v. Commonwealth, 411 S.W.3d 227

Background

On Feb. 4–5, 2011, a 9-year-old girl (Appellant’s sister) went missing and her body was found near Appellant Garrett Dye’s home the next morning. Initial search warrant recovered items including shovels, clothing, shoes, and a buccal swab from Dye.
Dye (17 at the time) and his parents were taken to the police station; his father asked that Dye not be questioned until counsel could be retained; Dye was not questioned then.
The next day Dye was arrested, read Miranda rights, and interrogated for ~2 hours in a courthouse office by four officers (two at a time). The interrogation was largely audiotaped. Dye confessed that day.
A second search warrant (Feb. 6) was issued based on information from Dye’s confession, and additional items were seized. At a suppression hearing Dye argued his confession was coerced, his Miranda waiver was not knowing/voluntary, and he had invoked his right to counsel.
The trial court denied suppression; Dye pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 50 years. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding the confession involuntary and remanding for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dye)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Whether confession was coerced/involuntary under Due Process	Interrogation used threats (death penalty, prison rape/violence), discouraged counsel, overbore his will → confession involuntary	Officers denied coercion; argued confession was voluntary	Confession was involuntary: officers’ false death-penalty threats, prison-violence threats, and discouragement of counsel were objectively coercive and the crucial motivating factor for confession.
Whether Dye knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights	Waiver was not voluntary in light of coercion and pressure to confess immediately	Waiver valid because rights were recited and Dye spoke after warnings	Court did not decide waiver separately; found coercion made any waiver invalid for due-process voluntariness analysis.
Whether Dye unequivocally invoked right to counsel and was denied	Dye expressed he didn’t want to say anything until lawyers arrived Monday; officers discouraged invocation and pressured immediate confession	Commonwealth implied discussion did not amount to unequivocal invocation or denial	Court treated officers’ repeated dissuasion from invoking counsel as relevant coercive conduct that contributed to involuntariness; remanded without needing definitive ruling on invocation.
Admissibility of evidence seized pursuant to warrant based on confession (fruit of poisonous tree)	Evidence obtained from Feb. 6 warrant derived from coerced confession must be suppressed	Commonwealth invoked inevitable-discovery doctrine to preserve seized evidence	Court held coerced confession must be suppressed and adopted principle that tangible evidence derived from such confessions is presumptively excludable; left inevitable-discovery claim for trial court to decide on remand.

Key Cases Cited

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (establishes two-step review for suppression rulings)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (categorical bar to death penalty for crimes committed under 18)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (coercive police activity is necessary predicate for involuntary-confession finding)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness assessed under totality of the circumstances)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (trial court findings on voluntariness entitled to deference but appellate courts may independently review)
Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (appellate courts must independently examine record on coerced-confession claims)
Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (certain interrogation techniques violate Due Process)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (failure to give Miranda warnings does not automatically require suppression of physical fruits; distinguished here because confession was coerced)
Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (plurality dictum recognizing protection against use of involuntary statements or evidence derived from them)
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (derivative-use prohibition of compelled testimony)