People v. Dunbar, 24 N.Y.3d 304 (2014)
r
r
A pre-interview preamble that encourages a suspect to speak by suggesting it is their only opportunity to tell their story or facilitate an investigation undermines the subsequent Miranda warnings, rendering them inadequate.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendants Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas sought to suppress statements made during pre-arraignment interviews. Before administering Miranda warnings, the District Attorney’s office used a preamble that included statements such as “this is your opportunity to tell us your story” and “your only opportunity” to speak before seeing a judge. The New York Court of Appeals held that this preamble undermined the subsequent Miranda warnings. The court reasoned that the preamble implied that remaining silent or requesting counsel would mean losing a valuable chance to speak with the assistant district attorney or have their case investigated, effectively negating the Miranda rights. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the convictions.
r
r
Facts
r
Dunbar was arrested for attempted robbery after being identified at the scene. Prior to his arraignment, he was given a videotaped interview where, before being read his Miranda rights, he was given a preamble that stated it was his opportunity to tell his side of the story. Lloyd-Douglas was arrested three years after an assault. He was given a similar pre-arraignment interview with the same preamble before his Miranda rights were read. Both defendants then made statements they later sought to suppress.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Dunbar was convicted of attempted robbery and criminal mischief, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the preamble negated the Miranda warnings. Lloyd-Douglas was convicted of multiple charges including attempted murder, but the Appellate Division also reversed based on the Dunbar ruling regarding the preamble’s effect on Miranda rights. The People appealed both cases to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a pre-interview preamble, which encourages a suspect to speak before Miranda warnings are administered, undermines the effectiveness of the subsequent Miranda warnings.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because the preamble’s language suggests that remaining silent or invoking the right to counsel would come at the cost of giving up a valuable opportunity to speak with authorities, have their case investigated, or assert an alibi defense, which contradicts the purpose of Miranda warnings.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals relied on Miranda v. Arizona, emphasizing that suspects must be adequately and effectively informed of their rights. The court also cited Missouri v. Seibert, which addressed the “question-first-and-warn-later” tactic, noting that warnings must effectively advise the suspect they have a real choice about giving an admissible statement. The Court found that the preamble used in Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas’s interviews neutralized the effect of the subsequent Miranda warnings. The court stated, “[t]he statements to ‘give me as much information as you can,’ that ‘this is your opportunity to tell us your story’ and that you ‘have to tell us now’ directly contradicted the later warning that they had the right to remain silent.” By suggesting that speaking would help their cases, the preamble undermined the warning that anything they said could be used against them. The Court distinguished between assessing the validity of a Miranda waiver under the totality of circumstances and determining whether the Miranda rights were clearly communicated in the first place. The court concluded that the preamble, though subtle, effectively deprived the defendants of an effective explanation of their rights, stating “While a lawyer would not be fooled, a reasonable person in these defendants’ shoes might well have concluded, after having listened to the preamble, that it was in his best interest to get out his side of the story — fast.”