Advice of Future “Possible Charges” Need Not be Given Prior to Interrogation
March 18, 2022 - Posted by Larry E. Holtz, Esq.
Back in 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56, that a Miranda waiver is invalid if police do not inform the arrestee that a criminal complaint has been filed or an arrest warrant has been issued against him. In State v. Sims, ___ N.J. ___ (2022), the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to extend the holding in A.G.D. to include an officer’s prediction, based on information learned to date in a developing investigation, of what charges may be filed.
In this appeal, defendant Sims challenged his conviction of attempted murder and weapons offenses arising from a shooting of an individual identified as “P.V.” Four days after the shooting, detectives went to the hospital and met with P.V., who identified defendant as the man who shot him in a recorded statement. The next day, prior to the issuance of any complaint or warrant or the filing of formal charges against defendant, detectives arrested defendant and conducted a videorecorded interview. Defendant waived his Miranda rights, and in an interview that lasted just over two hours, he gave a statement in which he said that he knew P.V., that he was aware of the shooting, and that his girlfriend owned a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle observed near the scene of P.V.’s shooting. Subsequently, P.V. was indicted for the murder of defendant’s brother.
In the court below, the Appellate Division adopted a new rule requiring police officers, prior to interrogation, to inform an arrestee of the charges that will be filed against him, even when no complaint or arrest warrant has been issued identifying those charges. The Appellate Division expanded the ruling in A.G.D. to require that a defendant who has been arrested be advised of the “actual” and “specific” charges he is facing, whether or not any such charges have been formally filed. It reasoned that a defendant, “once arrested,” must be “informed of the charge for which he was being placed under arrest before deciding whether to waive his right against self-incrimination.” The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning:
The rule announced in A.G.D. is clear and circumscribed. If a complaint-warrant has been filed or an arrest warrant has been issued against a suspect whom law enforcement officers seek to interrogate, the officers must disclose that fact to the interrogee and inform him in a simple declaratory statement of the charges filed against him before any interrogation. … The officers need not speculate about additional charges that may later be brought or the potential amendment of pending charges. …
The Appellate Division’s rule relies not on an objective statement of the charges pending against the arrestee, but on an officer’s prediction, based on information learned to date in a developing investigation, of what charges may be filed. [E]ven when there is probable cause for an arrest, there may be insufficient information about the victim’s injuries, the arrestee’s mental state, and other key issues to enable an officer to accurately identify the charges. … An officer acting in good faith might inadvertently misinform an arrestee as to the charges that he will eventually face. Id. at ___.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Appellate Division’s new rule requiring officers to tell an arrestee, not subject to a complaint-warrant or arrest warrant, what charges he may face before interrogating him “is unwarranted and impractical.”
Back in 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court held, in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56, that a Miranda waiver is invalid if police do not inform the arrestee that a criminal complaint has been filed or an arrest warrant has been issued against him. In State v. Sims, ___ N.J. ___ (2022), the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to extend the holding in A.G.D. to include an officer’s prediction, based on information learned to date in a developing investigation, of what charges may be filed.
In this appeal, defendant Sims challenged his conviction of attempted murder and weapons offenses arising from a shooting of an individual identified as “P.V.” Four days after the shooting, detectives went to the hospital and met with P.V., who identified defendant as the man who shot him in a recorded statement. The next day, prior to the issuance of any complaint or warrant or the filing of formal charges against defendant, detectives arrested defendant and conducted a videorecorded interview. Defendant waived his Miranda rights, and in an interview that lasted just over two hours, he gave a statement in which he said that he knew P.V., that he was aware of the shooting, and that his girlfriend owned a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle observed near the scene of P.V.’s shooting. Subsequently, P.V. was indicted for the murder of defendant’s brother.
In the court below, the Appellate Division adopted a new rule requiring police officers, prior to interrogation, to inform an arrestee of the charges that will be filed against him, even when no complaint or arrest warrant has been issued identifying those charges. The Appellate Division expanded the ruling in A.G.D. to require that a defendant who has been arrested be advised of the “actual” and “specific” charges he is facing, whether or not any such charges have been formally filed. It reasoned that a defendant, “once arrested,” must be “informed of the charge for which he was being placed under arrest before deciding whether to waive his right against self-incrimination.” The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning:
The rule announced in A.G.D. is clear and circumscribed. If a complaint-warrant has been filed or an arrest warrant has been issued against a suspect whom law enforcement officers seek to interrogate, the officers must disclose that fact to the interrogee and inform him in a simple declaratory statement of the charges filed against him before any interrogation. … The officers need not speculate about additional charges that may later be brought or the potential amendment of pending charges. …
The Appellate Division’s rule relies not on an objective statement of the charges pending against the arrestee, but on an officer’s prediction, based on information learned to date in a developing investigation, of what charges may be filed. [E]ven when there is probable cause for an arrest, there may be insufficient information about the victim’s injuries, the arrestee’s mental state, and other key issues to enable an officer to accurately identify the charges. … An officer acting in good faith might inadvertently misinform an arrestee as to the charges that he will eventually face. Id. at ___.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Appellate Division’s new rule requiring officers to tell an arrestee, not subject to a complaint-warrant or arrest warrant, what charges he may face before interrogating him “is unwarranted and impractical.”