People v. Lynn
278 P.3d 365
Colo.2012Background
- Lynn, in custody for parole violations, was interrogated by a Sterling police investigator in a booking cell regarding assault, kidnapping, and menacing.
- During Miranda advisement, Lynn asked, 'When can I talk to a lawyer?' and the officer responded with a cautious, lengthy follow-up.
- Lynn made incriminating statements after the unambiguous request for counsel.
- The trial court suppressed statements made after the request; the People appealed for interlocutory review.
- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, holding the request for counsel was unambiguous and required cessation of questioning.
- The decision relies on Miranda and Davis-based standards that an unambiguous request to counsel terminates interrogation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lynn's question an unambiguous request for counsel? | People argued the request was equivocal or could be interpreted as timing-oriented. | Lynn's request could reasonably be construed as a request for an attorney. | Yes; Lynn's question was an unambiguous request for counsel. |
| May police perform a limited inquiry after an ambiguous request for counsel? | If ambiguous, officers may clarify to determine the request. | Limited clarifying questions are permissible only if the request is ambiguous. | No; after an unambiguous request, no further questioning is allowed. |
| Did Huston's conduct scrupulously honor Lynn's Miranda rights? | Limited inquiry was proper to determine whether an attorney was requested. | Following the unambiguous request, continued questioning and persuasion to waive rights occurred. | No; Huston failed to scrupulously honor the request and improperly sought to obtain statements without counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (unambiguous request requires cessation; limited clarification not permitted)
- Bradshaw v. Colorado, 156 P.3d 452 (Colo. 2007) (scrupulously honor right to counsel; factors for ambiguity)
- Adkins v. Colorado, 113 P.3d 788 (Colo. 2005) (significance of timing and invocation of counsel; ambiguity factors)
- Richards v. Colorado, 194 Colo. 83 (Colo. 1977) (pressure from custodial interrogation; limits of questioning after right to counsel)
- Broder v. Colorado, 222 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2010) (totality-of-circumstances approach to ambiguity)
- Romero v. Colorado, 953 P.2d 550 (Colo. 1998) (establishes standard for reviewing suppression orders in recordings)
- Harris v. Colorado, 191 Colo. 234 (Colo. 1976) (unambiguous request for counsel may be satisfied by broad interpretation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (bright-line rule for invoking right to counsel)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (clarity standard for requests for counsel; limits on interpretation)