Summary
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court held that a defendant’s statement to police was properly suppressed after he requested an attorney and the detectives made no reasonable effort to facilitate contact with counsel. The court concluded that the police violated Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §§ 803-9(2) and 803-9(4), which protect an arrested person’s ability to communicate and consult with an attorney. The court reversed the Intermediate Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court’s suppression order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ababa's statement that he wanted to talk to an attorney, made after detectives presented talking to an attorney as an alternative to talking to them, constituted a request for counsel under HRS § 803-9(2).
- Whether the police violated HRS § 803-9(2) by failing to make reasonable efforts to contact counsel after Ababa requested an attorney.
- Whether the police violated HRS § 803-9(4) by interrogating Ababa before he had a fair opportunity to see and consult with counsel.
- Whether the statutory violations had an adverse impact on Ababa's substantive rights sufficient to require suppression of his statement.
Holdings
- When detectives tell a custodial suspect that he may talk either to them or to an attorney, the suspect's response that he wants to talk to an attorney constitutes a request for an attorney under HRS § 803-9(2). The request need not identify a particular lawyer or use a specific formulation such as “see,” “call,” or “contact.”
- The detectives violated HRS § 803-9(2) because, after Ababa requested an attorney, they made no effort to determine whether he knew an attorney, could afford one, wanted to use a telephone, or wanted the public defender's office contacted.
- Because the detectives failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain counsel, they also violated HRS § 803-9(4) by examining Ababa before he had a fair opportunity to see and consult with an attorney.
- Suppression was required because Ababa demonstrated that the statutory violations adversely affected his substantive rights and were connected to his decision to waive his rights and provide a statement.
Key quotations
“the question whether a request was made cannot rest on a semantical parsing of whether Petitioner asked to “see,” to “talk to,” to “call,” or to “contact” an attorney, as opposed to “requesting” an attorney.” (215)
“The statute requires that, when a defendant being questioned by police indicates that he or she wants counsel, the interrogation must stop and the police must make reasonable efforts to contact counsel.” (216)
“The question posed by HRS § 803-9(2) is whether, under the particular facts of the case, the measures taken by the police were reasonably calculated to satisfy the duty imposed by the statute.” (217)
“The statement rendered on January 4, 2000, therefore, was correctly suppressed.” (218)
Factual background
Ababa was arrested in connection with a shooting and taken to the Honolulu Police Department station. During a brief January 4, 2000 interview, detectives told him he could talk to them or to an attorney, and Ababa stated that he wanted an attorney; the detectives returned him to his cell without providing a telephone, a telephone number, or contacting counsel. After waiting approximately three hours, Ababa concluded that the police would not obtain a lawyer, said “Fuck the lawyer,” waived his rights, and gave a recorded statement. He testified that the absence of an attorney caused him to decide to speak with police.
Procedural history
Ababa was charged with several felonies and moved before trial to suppress statements made during a police interrogation. The circuit court granted the motion, finding violations of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his statutory rights under HRS §§ 803-9(2) and 803-9(4). The ICA vacated the order, but the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the ICA and affirmed the circuit court's suppression order.