793 N.W.2d 901
Wis. Ct. App.2010Background
- Hampton appeals the denial of his motion to suppress statements made to Milwaukee detectives on July 20 and 21, 2008.
- Interviews occurred after his July 15 homicide arrest; July 20 interview began around 7:43 p.m. and July 21 interview began at 2:47 p.m.
- Hampton was not handcuffed and detectives were not armed during the July 20 interview.
- Hampton initially indicated he did not want to say anything and referenced a prior instruction to talk to Detective Peterson, then waived rights after Miranda warnings.
- The circuit court found no unequivocal request for counsel at the outset of July 20, concluded a waiver after rights were read, and found a later invocation at 2:38 p.m. did not taint the July 20 interrogation; Hampton later confessed on July 21 after Miranda warnings.
- Hampton pled guilty to first-degree reckless homicide under a plea agreement and was sentenced to 25 years’ initial confinement followed by 15 years of ES, sustaining the use of the suppressed evidence as applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hampton’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was implicated | Hampton contends Sixth Amendment rights attach and were implicated | Court held Sixth Amendment not applicable as offense-specific and no complaint/arrest; thus not implicated | Not implicated; Sixth Amendment not apply to this offense. |
| Whether Hampton unambiguously invoked the Fifth Amendment right to counsel on July 20 | Hampton asserted he did invoke counsel at the outset | Statement not unambiguous invocation; not clear request for attorney | No unambiguous invocation at the outset; questioning continued. |
| Whether Hampton unambiguously invoked the right to counsel again during the July 20 interview | Two hours 38 minutes in, Hampton invoked the right to counsel | Detectives complied temporarily; later discussion resumed; waiver followed | Invocation occurred, but detectives terminated interrogation and later allowed waiver. |
| Whether the July 21 interview was tainted by the July 20 violations and should be suppressed | Invocation taint could carry over to July 21 | Sufficient attenuation between interviews; waiver proper | No attenuation problem; July 21 statements admissible. |
| Whether Hampton’s right to remain silent was violated during the July 20 interview | He asserted a desire to remain silent; interrogation should have ceased | Right to remain silent not unambiguously invoked; waiver valid | No unambiguous invocation; interrogation properly continued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (implicit waiver suffices; need not be express)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (waiver can be implicit; not required to be express)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1979) (knowing and voluntary waiver after warnings)
- State v. Ross, 203 Wis. 2d 66 (Ct. App. 1996) (clear vs ambiguous invocation; interrogation may continue)
- State v. Lagar, 190 Wis. 2d 423 (Ct. App. 1994) (initiation to talk after invoking rights; police must honor or clarify)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1983) (two tests for initiating further conversation after invocation)
- State v. Hambly, 307 Wis.2d 98 (Wis. 2005) (two-step Bradshaw framework for initiated conversations)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (right to cut off questioning and limit interrogation)
- McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after complaint/warrant)