NJ Appellate Court Rules in Miranda Waiver Case Prior to Charges Being Filed
April 11, 2021 - The State filed for a “stay” of the Appellate Court’s decision and they were seeking to have the case reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The State's request for a stay of the lower court’s decision was granted and the New Jersey Supreme Court will be reviewing the decision in this matter.
In February, I wrote about an Appellate Division decision that impacted police interrogations and advising a suspect of charges that may be filed against them. At that time, I reported on the Court’s decision State v. Sims (A-264 l-l 7T2), which held that where probable cause exists to charge a suspect with a criminal offense, even though formal charges have not yet been filed, officers must inform the suspect that they may be charged and must provide the offense(s) that can be charged, prior to conducting an interrogation.
Since that decision was published, the State filed for a “stay” of the Appellate Court’s decision and they were seeking to have the case reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The State's request for a stay of the lower court’s decision was granted and the New Jersey Supreme Court will be reviewing the decision in this matter.
While officers must still rely on their agency’s police legal advisors, the ultimate outcome in this case and its impact on interrogations and Miranda waivers by suspects will be decided by our State’s highest Court in the future. Given the current stay, officers are no longer bound by the Appellate Division’s decision and they do not have to advise a suspect that they can be charged with criminal offenses where there is probable cause to charge, but when no charges have been formally filed.
January 11, 2021 - Posted by Ed Esposito
On January 4, 2021, the Appellate Division published their decision in State v. Anthony Sims, Jr., (Docket No. A-2641-17T2), which included a partial dissenting opinion by one judge on the panel (more on that later). In the Court’s decision, they now extend the NJ Supreme Court's holdings in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003), and State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019), which requires the police to inform a defendant subject to custodial interrogation of the specific charges filed against them before they can waive their Miranda rights to “also apply to an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation.” Sims, Jr., supra.
According to their decision, “the same requirement applies because without being correctly informed of the crime for which he was arrested, a defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive his right against self-incrimination.” Ibid.
In April of 2014, police began investigating a shooting incident in Red Bank, New Jersey where a man was shot twelve times. At the scene, and before the victim of the shooting was transported to the hospital, he did not provide any information of investigative value regarding who may have been responsible for shooting him. However, the victim’s grandmother provided information to police at the scene that would assist with their investigation.
Prior to the police arriving at the scene, the victim’s grandmother ran outside after hearing gun shots and hearing her grandson calling out to her for help. She found him bleeding profusely as he partially hung out of the passenger side of his Chevy Camaro that was parked in her driveway. Notably, she asked her grandson, "Who did this to you?" and he answered, "Sims." Ultimately, she told police at the scene that her grandson said the shooter was the brother of his friend.
During the victim’s recovery at the hospital, two detectives investigating the incident conducted an interview and obtained a statement from the victim to aid their investigation. Over the course of nearly three hours, the victim provided the detectives with information about the shooting. The victim was described as cooperative during the interview with the detectives. Specific details of the incident were provided by the victim including the description and name of the shooter. Prior to the end of the interview, the victim identified a photo of defendant and signed the back, confirming it was Anthony Sims, Jr. who had shot him.
One day after the detectives conducted their interview, they located the defendant and advised him he was being placed under arrest. The defendant was handcuffed, searched, and then transported to the detectives’ office. At the time of the arrest, the detectives did not advise the defendant why they were arresting him. Between the time of arrest and the arrival at the office, the defendant asked why he was under arrest, and one of the detectives told him they "would get into the details" when they got to the office. In this case, the defendant was lawfully arrested without a warrant based on the detectives’ probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime.
Upon arrival at the office, the defendant was brought into an interview room that was equipped with a video recording device. The detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, which he ultimately agreed to waive. This was documented on a Miranda form. The detectives required the defendant to initial each page and sign the form to memorialize he had waived his right to have his attorney present. The defendant proceeded to answer questions asked by the detectives after the Miranda form was completed.
During the interrogation, the defendant denied having any involvement in the incident. At one point, the defendant denied even knowing anything about the incident, but then recalled he had read a newspaper article about the shooting. The defendant also initially denied knowing the victim and anyone in his family, but then said he knew the victim by his first name but did not know his last name. As the interrogation continued, the detectives told the defendant that they had knowledge that he was in Red Bank at the time of the shooting because he was recorded on camera. The defendant continued to deny this and eventually asked if he could make a call from his cell phone. The detectives permitted the defendant to do so and then seized his phone afterwards.
Evidence obtained throughout the detailed investigation consisted of surveillance video depicting the incident and multiple witness interviews. Additionally, the information and records obtained from the defendant's cell phone that was seized during the interrogation confirmed he was in Red Bank at or about the time of the shooting. The investigation resulted in a grand jury indictment charging the defendant with attempted murder and various weapons offenses.
The Court in this case relied on the decisions in Vincenty, supra, and A.G.D., supra, to determine that “[o]nce arrested, [a] defendant [i]s entitled to be informed of the charge for which he [i]s being placed under arrest before deciding whether to waive his right against self-incrimination.” Sims, Jr., supra. The Court explained that “[i]t makes no difference whether the charge is an indictable offense stated in a civilian's or law enforcement officer's filed complaint warrant, attesting to facts that establish probable cause to believe the defendant committed the alleged crime, or if the defendant is arrested without a warrant based on the officer's probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. Ibid (Emphasis added).
While this is the standard we must adhere to now, it certainly places law enforcement in a precarious situation. It is likely that this decision will be further analyzed by the NJ Supreme Court since particularly important issues were raised by J.A.D. Susswein in the partial dissenting opinion. In pertinent part, the dissent states, “I write separately to explain why I believe the per se rule contemplated in section II of the majority opinion, which would require police in some cases to advise a custodial interrogee of charges not yet filed, has the potential to introduce uncertainty to the administration of Miranda warnings.” Ibid (Emphasis added). J.A.D. Susswein also wrote, “[a] per se rule requiring notification of charges not yet filed may create additional uncertainties when, for example, a defendant is arrested for one criminal incident but also is suspected of committing other uncharged crimes.” Ibid (Emphasis added).
The dissenting opinion also stated: “A per se rule requiring notification of charges not yet filed may create additional uncertainties when, for example, a defendant is arrested for one criminal incident but also is suspected of committing other uncharged crimes. Consider a situation where a burglar is caught red-handed in a home and also suspected of committing a rash of other residential burglaries for which the proofs are less compelling. It is not clear under the rule announced today whether an interrogating detective must tell the arrestee he is suspected of—and likely to be charged with—committing those other burglaries. New questions will arise under this new paradigm. For example, must the interrogating officer decide whether, in view of the latest episode, there is now probable cause to believe that the defendant committed some or all of those other burglaries? If probable cause for those other criminal events has, in the officer's opinion, ripened as a result of the suspect's latest offense, must the officer so advise the arrestee before conducting the custodial interrogation?”
Hopefully, the NJ Supreme Court will review this case and provide clear guidance to this new and ambiguous requirement. When seeking a waiver of a person’s Miranda rights, law enforcement should be guided by objectively verifiable and distinct details to be able to know specifically what they are required to disclose to the person they are seeking to interrogate.
Based on the Court’s opinion in this case, law enforcement officers should seek guidance from their respective legal advisors as this area of criminal procedure develops.
In February, I wrote about an Appellate Division decision that impacted police interrogations and advising a suspect of charges that may be filed against them. At that time, I reported on the Court’s decision State v. Sims (A-264 l-l 7T2), which held that where probable cause exists to charge a suspect with a criminal offense, even though formal charges have not yet been filed, officers must inform the suspect that they may be charged and must provide the offense(s) that can be charged, prior to conducting an interrogation.
Since that decision was published, the State filed for a “stay” of the Appellate Court’s decision and they were seeking to have the case reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The State's request for a stay of the lower court’s decision was granted and the New Jersey Supreme Court will be reviewing the decision in this matter.
While officers must still rely on their agency’s police legal advisors, the ultimate outcome in this case and its impact on interrogations and Miranda waivers by suspects will be decided by our State’s highest Court in the future. Given the current stay, officers are no longer bound by the Appellate Division’s decision and they do not have to advise a suspect that they can be charged with criminal offenses where there is probable cause to charge, but when no charges have been formally filed.
January 11, 2021 - Posted by Ed Esposito
On January 4, 2021, the Appellate Division published their decision in State v. Anthony Sims, Jr., (Docket No. A-2641-17T2), which included a partial dissenting opinion by one judge on the panel (more on that later). In the Court’s decision, they now extend the NJ Supreme Court's holdings in State v. A.G.D., 178 N.J. 56 (2003), and State v. Vincenty, 237 N.J. 122 (2019), which requires the police to inform a defendant subject to custodial interrogation of the specific charges filed against them before they can waive their Miranda rights to “also apply to an interrogee who was arrested and questioned prior to any charges being filed, where the arrest was based upon information developed through an earlier police investigation.” Sims, Jr., supra.
According to their decision, “the same requirement applies because without being correctly informed of the crime for which he was arrested, a defendant cannot knowingly and intelligently waive his right against self-incrimination.” Ibid.
In April of 2014, police began investigating a shooting incident in Red Bank, New Jersey where a man was shot twelve times. At the scene, and before the victim of the shooting was transported to the hospital, he did not provide any information of investigative value regarding who may have been responsible for shooting him. However, the victim’s grandmother provided information to police at the scene that would assist with their investigation.
Prior to the police arriving at the scene, the victim’s grandmother ran outside after hearing gun shots and hearing her grandson calling out to her for help. She found him bleeding profusely as he partially hung out of the passenger side of his Chevy Camaro that was parked in her driveway. Notably, she asked her grandson, "Who did this to you?" and he answered, "Sims." Ultimately, she told police at the scene that her grandson said the shooter was the brother of his friend.
During the victim’s recovery at the hospital, two detectives investigating the incident conducted an interview and obtained a statement from the victim to aid their investigation. Over the course of nearly three hours, the victim provided the detectives with information about the shooting. The victim was described as cooperative during the interview with the detectives. Specific details of the incident were provided by the victim including the description and name of the shooter. Prior to the end of the interview, the victim identified a photo of defendant and signed the back, confirming it was Anthony Sims, Jr. who had shot him.
One day after the detectives conducted their interview, they located the defendant and advised him he was being placed under arrest. The defendant was handcuffed, searched, and then transported to the detectives’ office. At the time of the arrest, the detectives did not advise the defendant why they were arresting him. Between the time of arrest and the arrival at the office, the defendant asked why he was under arrest, and one of the detectives told him they "would get into the details" when they got to the office. In this case, the defendant was lawfully arrested without a warrant based on the detectives’ probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime.
Upon arrival at the office, the defendant was brought into an interview room that was equipped with a video recording device. The detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, which he ultimately agreed to waive. This was documented on a Miranda form. The detectives required the defendant to initial each page and sign the form to memorialize he had waived his right to have his attorney present. The defendant proceeded to answer questions asked by the detectives after the Miranda form was completed.
During the interrogation, the defendant denied having any involvement in the incident. At one point, the defendant denied even knowing anything about the incident, but then recalled he had read a newspaper article about the shooting. The defendant also initially denied knowing the victim and anyone in his family, but then said he knew the victim by his first name but did not know his last name. As the interrogation continued, the detectives told the defendant that they had knowledge that he was in Red Bank at the time of the shooting because he was recorded on camera. The defendant continued to deny this and eventually asked if he could make a call from his cell phone. The detectives permitted the defendant to do so and then seized his phone afterwards.
Evidence obtained throughout the detailed investigation consisted of surveillance video depicting the incident and multiple witness interviews. Additionally, the information and records obtained from the defendant's cell phone that was seized during the interrogation confirmed he was in Red Bank at or about the time of the shooting. The investigation resulted in a grand jury indictment charging the defendant with attempted murder and various weapons offenses.
The Court in this case relied on the decisions in Vincenty, supra, and A.G.D., supra, to determine that “[o]nce arrested, [a] defendant [i]s entitled to be informed of the charge for which he [i]s being placed under arrest before deciding whether to waive his right against self-incrimination.” Sims, Jr., supra. The Court explained that “[i]t makes no difference whether the charge is an indictable offense stated in a civilian's or law enforcement officer's filed complaint warrant, attesting to facts that establish probable cause to believe the defendant committed the alleged crime, or if the defendant is arrested without a warrant based on the officer's probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime. Ibid (Emphasis added).
While this is the standard we must adhere to now, it certainly places law enforcement in a precarious situation. It is likely that this decision will be further analyzed by the NJ Supreme Court since particularly important issues were raised by J.A.D. Susswein in the partial dissenting opinion. In pertinent part, the dissent states, “I write separately to explain why I believe the per se rule contemplated in section II of the majority opinion, which would require police in some cases to advise a custodial interrogee of charges not yet filed, has the potential to introduce uncertainty to the administration of Miranda warnings.” Ibid (Emphasis added). J.A.D. Susswein also wrote, “[a] per se rule requiring notification of charges not yet filed may create additional uncertainties when, for example, a defendant is arrested for one criminal incident but also is suspected of committing other uncharged crimes.” Ibid (Emphasis added).
The dissenting opinion also stated: “A per se rule requiring notification of charges not yet filed may create additional uncertainties when, for example, a defendant is arrested for one criminal incident but also is suspected of committing other uncharged crimes. Consider a situation where a burglar is caught red-handed in a home and also suspected of committing a rash of other residential burglaries for which the proofs are less compelling. It is not clear under the rule announced today whether an interrogating detective must tell the arrestee he is suspected of—and likely to be charged with—committing those other burglaries. New questions will arise under this new paradigm. For example, must the interrogating officer decide whether, in view of the latest episode, there is now probable cause to believe that the defendant committed some or all of those other burglaries? If probable cause for those other criminal events has, in the officer's opinion, ripened as a result of the suspect's latest offense, must the officer so advise the arrestee before conducting the custodial interrogation?”
Hopefully, the NJ Supreme Court will review this case and provide clear guidance to this new and ambiguous requirement. When seeking a waiver of a person’s Miranda rights, law enforcement should be guided by objectively verifiable and distinct details to be able to know specifically what they are required to disclose to the person they are seeking to interrogate.
Based on the Court’s opinion in this case, law enforcement officers should seek guidance from their respective legal advisors as this area of criminal procedure develops.