People v. West, 81 N.Y.2d 370 (1993)

Once a defendant is actually represented by counsel in a criminal matter, the State constitutional right to counsel indelibly attaches, prohibiting police from engaging in covert interrogation regarding that matter without first determining whether the attorney-client relationship continues.

Summary

Defendant was implicated in a shooting. He appeared in a lineup represented by counsel, who instructed the police not to question him. Three years later, without inquiring whether defendant was still represented, police used a wired informant to elicit incriminating statements. The New York Court of Appeals held that these statements were obtained in violation of defendant’s indelible right to counsel because the police knew of the prior representation and failed to determine if it was ongoing before initiating the covert interrogation. The conviction was reversed, and the statements were suppressed.

Facts

Defendant was involved in a drug operation. In 1982, a shooting occurred. Defendant was placed in a lineup, represented by counsel who instructed police not to question him in his absence. The lineup results were inconclusive, and defendant was not charged. Three years later, an accomplice, seeking leniency, implicated defendant and, acting as an informant, surreptitiously recorded conversations with defendant at the direction of law enforcement. The police made no attempt to contact defendant’s attorney before arranging these conversations.

Procedural History

Defendant was indicted for murder based on the taped conversations. His attorney (the same one from the lineup) moved to suppress the taped statements, arguing a violation of defendant’s right to counsel. The trial court denied suppression. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, reasoning the initial investigation had ended and the taped statements were part of a new investigation, also emphasizing the noncustodial nature of the taped conversations. The New York Court of Appeals reversed.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s indelible right to counsel, which attached when he was represented by counsel at a lineup, was violated when police, without determining if the representation continued, used a wired informant to elicit incriminating statements from him about the same matter three years later.

Holding

Yes, because when the police know that a defendant has an attorney in the matter under investigation, they have a duty to inquire whether the attorney-client relationship continues before engaging in further interrogation, even if non-custodial and covert. They cannot sidestep a defendant’s constitutional rights by failing to inquire whether the attorney-client relationship continued with respect to the very matter under investigation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the strength of New York’s right to counsel protections. It noted the right attaches indelibly upon actual representation in a criminal matter. The Court distinguished this situation from cases involving representation on unrelated charges, where the right to counsel is derivative. The Court stated that in the present case, the police knew of the prior representation and were therefore obligated to determine whether it continued before questioning the defendant. The Court reasoned that the police cannot simply assume the representation has ceased, even after a significant period of time has passed. The court cited People v. Skinner, 52 N.Y.2d 24 (1980), and People v. Knapp, 57 N.Y.2d 161 (1982) as precedent. The Court explicitly rejected the dissent’s argument that the defendant must prove the attorney-client relationship existed at the precise moment of questioning. The Court stated, “A suspect whose right has indelibly attached has no obligation to keep the police informed as to the status of the attorney-client relationship. Should the police wish to question defendant without counsel on the same matter after the right has attached, it is as a rule their burden to determine whether representation continues (People v Marrero, 51 NY2d 56, 59).” The Court concluded by noting that this rule does not create an interminable right to counsel but rather ensures that the police respect existing attorney-client relationships. The Court stated, “Absent some indication that the representation had ceased, the police could not question defendant concerning the very matter as to which they knew he had a lawyer”.