State v. Philpot
299 Ga. 206
| Ga. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 26, 2012, Brandon Philpot was arrested in connection with a Sept. 28, 2010 armed robbery and homicide; he was interviewed by Atlanta PD detectives Quinn and Zimbrick and audio-recorded (surreptitiously).
- During Miranda warnings, Philpot referenced his lawyer and asked the officers to call his girlfriend so she could call his lawyer; after follow-up, the court found he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel.
- Detectives continued questioning despite Philpot’s request for counsel, including inducements that they could not disclose information because of his request for a lawyer.
- Near the end of the interview (after continued police questioning), Philpot admitted holding a victim at gunpoint; he had not signed a written waiver and was not provided counsel.
- Philpot moved to suppress his custodial statement; the trial court granted the motion, finding an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel and no reinitiation or waiver; the State appealed.
- The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed suppression, relying on the audio recording and prior authority that a clear request for counsel ends interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates or counsel is provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Philpot unambiguously invoked his right to counsel during custodial interrogation | Philpot clearly requested counsel by asking officers to call his girlfriend to get his lawyer’s number and repeatedly asking to contact his lawyer | The State argued Philpot’s statements were ambiguous or merely offers to provide the lawyer’s number to the officers and thus did not invoke the right | Court held Philpot unambiguously invoked his right to counsel when he asked officers to contact his girlfriend to call his lawyer, so interrogation should have ceased |
| Whether detectives may continue questioning after an invocation absent counsel or reinitiation | N/A (issue centers on State’s conduct) | State contended Philpot reinitiated conversation and validly waived rights, so subsequent statements admissible | Court held detectives improperly continued questioning and Philpot did not reinitiate; therefore statements were inadmissible |
| Whether any subsequent statements constituted an effective waiver of the right to counsel | State argued any later statements showed reinitiation and waiver | Philpot argued all responses were elicited by continued police questioning after invocation, so no waiver | Court held no valid waiver — statements were responses to continued interrogation after invocation and must be suppressed |
| Whether suppression of the custodial statement was proper | Philpot sought suppression of his statement as obtained in violation of his invoked right to counsel | State appealed trial court’s suppression order | Court affirmed suppression of the custodial statement in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 289 Ga. 537 (clarifies standard for unambiguous invocation of counsel and police duty to stop questioning)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (holding that invocation of counsel must be clear and unambiguous)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (rule barring further interrogation after invocation of the right to counsel unless counsel is present or defendant reinitiates)
- McDougal v. State, 277 Ga. 493 (statement that defendant wants to call his lawyer or have someone contact attorney is a clear request for counsel)
- Ellis v. State, 332 Ga. App. 883 (agreement to talk after rights read did not vitiate prior request for counsel; investigator-initiated questioning after invocation improper)
- Vergara v. State, 283 Ga. 175 (explains that reinitiation by suspect can permit further questioning if accompanied by a valid waiver)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established procedural safeguards including right to counsel during custodial interrogation)