People v. Kutlak
364 P.3d 199
Colo.2016Background
- Westminster police arrested Levent Kutlak after a late-night physical altercation; he was interviewed at the station by Detective Johnson about six hours later; the interview was audio/video recorded.
- Johnson gave Miranda warnings; Kutlak acknowledged rights and said he had a personal lawyer "on retainer," then asked, "can we get him down here now, or...?"
- Detective Johnson replied it "may be difficult" to reach the lawyer and said it was "entirely up to you." Kutlak then said he would "take a dice roll" and talk, signed a Miranda waiver, and made incriminating statements.
- Kutlak moved to suppress. The trial court denied suppression, finding the request for counsel ambiguous and that Kutlak reinitiated and waived. The court of appeals reversed, holding Kutlak made an unambiguous invocation and questioning never ceased, so he could not have reinitiated.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, reviewed the interrogation video de novo, and framed the question under Davis v. United States (whether a reasonable officer would understand the statement as a request for counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Kutlak) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kutlak unambiguously invoked right to counsel under Davis | Initially conceded to the court of appeals that the statement was an invocation; later argued ambiguity before this Court | Argued his statement requesting the lawyer to be brought down was an unambiguous invocation of counsel | Court held Kutlak's statements were ambiguous; a reasonable officer would not necessarily understand them as an unambiguous request for counsel (Davis standard applied) |
| Whether, after an invocation, Kutlak reinitiated the conversation and validly waived rights | Argued that even if invocation occurred, Kutlak later reinitiated and knowingly waived his rights | Argued that interrogation never ceased after the invocation, so he could not have reinitiated | Court did not reach reinitiation as dispositive because it found no invocation; held waiver was valid when he signed the form and said he would "take a dice roll" |
| Proper standard to determine ambiguity of request for counsel | (People took inconsistent positions; ultimately urged Davis standard applies) | Asked Court to accept prior Colorado formulations that allowed construing statements broadly as invoking counsel | Court clarified and adopted Davis: ask whether a reasonable officer in circumstances would understand the statement as a request for an attorney; overruled Colorado precedent that effectively required only that a statement "could be construed" as a request |
| Whether statements should have been suppressed | Argued suppression was required if invocation occurred and Edwards applied | Argued statements should not be suppressed because no unambiguous invocation and waiver was knowing | Held statements should not have been suppressed because Kutlak did not unambiguously invoke counsel and validly waived Miranda rights; reversed court of appeals and remanded for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (establishes that invocation must be unambiguous enough that a reasonable officer would understand it as a request for counsel)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (prohibits further interrogation after an unambiguous request for counsel unless counsel is provided or defendant initiates and validly waives)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966) (requires advising suspects of right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination)
- Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984) (discusses Edwards’ prophylactic rule and waiver after invocation)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (addresses what constitutes reinitiation of conversation after invocation)
- People v. Romero, 958 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1998) (Colorado case discussing ambiguity standards pre- and post-Davis)
- People v. Adkins, 118 P.3d 788 (Colo. 2005) (Colorado precedent that the Court revisits and narrows in light of Davis)
- People v. Lynn, 278 P.3d 365 (Colo. 2012) (Colorado decision that the Court overrules in part for adopting a broader "could be construed" formulation)