State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson
228 Ariz. 343
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Carlson was in police custody on June 16, 2009 and interrogated by a detective in a police station without any Miranda advisory being given.
- Before questioning began, Carlson verbally waived his rights after the detective stated an intention to read him his rights, but no advisory was actually read.
- A lengthy interrogation followed during which Carlson made numerous incriminating statements.
- The trial court suppressed Carlson’s statements, holding the detective failed to affirmatively advise him of Miranda rights and to warn him he could have counsel present.
- The State appealed the suppression order, arguing Carlson’s own recitation of rights and prior knowledge sufficed to waive Miranda protections.
- The appellate court affirmed suppression, concluding Carlson did not demonstrate a knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver without a proper Miranda warning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlson's recitation shows a knowing waiver without a Miranda warning | Carlson's recitation evidenced knowledge of rights, making warnings unnecessary | Without a proper advisory, a knowing waiver cannot be demonstrated | Waiver not shown; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the right to counsel must be conveyed before and during interrogation | A general right to counsel suffices when no explicit time frame is stated | The warnings must explicitly include the right to counsel before and during questioning | Explicit right-to-counsel warning required; waiver not valid |
| Whether Powell and Moorman require explicit advisement of the right to counsel before and during interrogation | Carlson’s knowledge and past experience should be enough under Powell/Moorman | Those decisions require explicit counseling rights be conveyed; Carlson failed | Explicit warning required; failure to warn means suppression stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moorman, 154 Ariz. 578 (Ariz. 1987) (right to counsel exists before and during interrogation)
- United States v. Bland, 908 F.2d 471 (9th Cir. 1990) (inadequate warning requires suppression even if remorseful familiarity exists)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989) (Miranda warnings are an absolute prerequisite to interrogation)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (U.S. 2010) (waiver of Miranda rights must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195 (U.S. 2010) (warnings must convey right to consult and have counsel present during interrogation)
- Moorman (Arizona Supreme Court), 154 Ariz. 578, 744 P.2d 679 (1987) (Miranda warning content requirements in Arizona context)