State of Washington v. Desarae Marie Dawson
33953-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Police observed a 2001 Subaru reported stolen; Desarae Dawson got into it and was stopped and arrested.
- Officer Stephanie Kennedy orally recited Miranda warnings from memory; a backup officer testified Dawson acknowledged and waived rights before questioning.
- Dawson initially gave a Craigslist explanation, then admitted to Kennedy she knew the car was stolen; she later repeated similar statements to Detective Craig Wendt after receiving written Miranda warnings the next day.
- At a CrR 3.5 suppression hearing, Kennedy testified inconsistently about the exact wording she used and admitted she had omitted a specific admonition during her courtroom recitation.
- Dawson argued the omission of a warning that a suspect may stop answering questions at any time until speaking to counsel rendered her waiver unknowing and involuntary and tainted subsequent statements to the detective.
- The trial court admitted the statements; Dawson was convicted and appealed the denial of her suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda requires an express warning that a suspect can stop answering questions at any time until consulting a lawyer | Dawson: Miranda requires a fifth warning that a suspect can stop answering until able to consult counsel; omission invalidates waiver | State: Miranda’s required warnings are the four core advisements; no additional warning is constitutionally required | Court: No. The four-part Miranda warning suffices; no separate warning that questioning can be stopped at any time is required |
| Whether Kennedy’s oral, from-memory recitation (with an alleged omission) rendered Dawson’s waiver unknowing/coerced | Dawson: Kennedy’s omission shows incomplete Miranda and involuntary/unknowing waiver | State: Kennedy testified she advised rights and Dawson knowingly waived; use of a card is good practice but not required | Court: Substantial evidence supports that Dawson was Mirandized and knowingly waived her rights |
| Whether statements to Detective Wendt were tainted by any alleged Miranda violation by Kennedy | Dawson: Any prior violation tainted subsequent interrogation; attenuation insufficient | State: Because there was no Miranda violation by Kennedy, no taint issue | Court: Because no Miranda violation occurred, attenuation/taint need not be addressed |
| Whether officer should use a preprinted rights card every time to avoid omission | Dawson: Omitted warning suggests officer should be required to use a card | State: Practical standard allows officers to recite warnings from memory if they convey the required rights | Court: Using a card is preferred practice but not legally required; oral recitation that conveys the four warnings is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes the Miranda warnings and waiver standard)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (holds variant Miranda wording permissible if it adequately conveys required rights)
- In re Personal Restraint of Woods, 154 Wn.2d 400 (Washington Supreme Court: Miranda requires the four-part warning; no additional fifth warning required)
- State v. Mayer, 184 Wn.2d 548 (clarifies that post-warning explanations cannot obscure rights; warnings must be effectively conveyed)