People v. Cunningham, 49 N.Y.2d 203 (1980)
When a suspect indicates a desire for an attorney to a third party in the presence of law enforcement, that constitutes a sufficient invocation of the right to counsel, and subsequent interrogation without honoring that request renders any waiver of rights invalid.
Summary
Cunningham was arrested as a suspect in a rape investigation. During his arrest, Cunningham asked his supervisor, in the presence of police officers, to call his wife and lawyer. After arriving at the police station and receiving Miranda warnings, Cunningham waived his rights and made incriminating statements. The New York Court of Appeals held that the statements were inadmissible because Cunningham’s request for counsel, even though made to a third party, was made in the presence of the police, and therefore triggered the requirement that interrogation cease until counsel was present. The court emphasized that once a suspect requests an attorney, any subsequent waiver obtained through immediate police action is invalid.
Facts
Police officers arrived at the Masonic Home where Cunningham worked, as he was a suspect in a rape investigation. Cunningham refused to enter the police car, leading to a struggle. During the struggle, Cunningham requested that his supervisor call his wife and lawyer, in the presence of the officers. After this request, Cunningham ceased resisting and was taken to police headquarters. Upon arrival, he was informed of his Miranda rights, waived them, and made incriminating statements.
Procedural History
The County Court denied Cunningham’s motion to suppress his statements. He was subsequently convicted, upon a guilty plea, of attempted rape and sexual abuse. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Cunningham appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a suspect’s request for an attorney made to a third party in the presence of police officers constitutes a sufficient invocation of the right to counsel.
2. Whether a waiver of the right to counsel obtained shortly after the suspect’s request for counsel is valid.
Holding
1. Yes, because a request for counsel made to a third party in the presence of law enforcement is sufficient to invoke the right to counsel.
2. No, because when a suspect requests an attorney, interrogation must cease, and a subsequent waiver obtained shortly thereafter is ineffective.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Cunningham’s request for counsel, made to his supervisor in the presence of the police, was sufficient to trigger his right to have counsel present during questioning. The court emphasized that it would be an “absurd formality” to require the request to be made directly to the police when they were present during the request. The court cited Miranda v. Arizona, stating that if a suspect “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.” The court distinguished between asserting the right to remain silent and requesting an attorney, noting that once an attorney is requested, interrogation must cease. While a suspect can make a spontaneous admission or voluntarily change their mind, this was not the case here. “For the same underlying reason—that a waiver must be voluntary—we now hold that when a suspect makes known his desire for an attorney at the time of his arrest, upon reaching the station house the police may not immediately and actively seek a waiver of this right and then proceed to interrogate him in the absence of counsel.” The court found that the police violated Cunningham’s constitutional rights by immediately seeking a waiver and commencing questioning without honoring his request for counsel, rendering his subsequent statements inadmissible.