People v. Porter, 9 N.Y.3d 966, 878 N.E.2d 998, 848 N.Y.S.2d 583 (2007)
When a suspect makes an unequivocal request for counsel during a custodial interrogation, further questioning by the police is prohibited.
Summary
Anthony Porter appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained after he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that Porter’s statement, “I think I need an attorney,” coupled with the interviewing officer’s notation that Porter was “asking for an attorney,” constituted an unequivocal request for counsel, thus requiring the police to cease questioning. The Court suppressed the confession but upheld the finding that police had consent to search the premises.
Facts
Anthony Porter was being interviewed by police officers. During the interview, Porter stated, “I think I need an attorney.” The interviewing officer made a notation that Porter was “asking for an attorney.” Despite this, the police continued to question Porter, and he subsequently made a confession. Porter moved to suppress the confession, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his right to counsel.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Porter’s motion to suppress. Porter was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding that Porter’s request for counsel was equivocal and that the police had consent to search the premises. Porter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Porter’s statement, “I think I need an attorney,” coupled with the interviewing officer’s notation, constituted an unequivocal request for counsel, thus requiring the police to cease questioning.
2. Whether the Appellate Division’s finding that the police had consent to search the premises where defendant was located has support in the record and is thus beyond review.
Holding
1. Yes, because Porter’s statement, along with the officer’s notation, demonstrated an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel, prohibiting further inquiry by the police.
2. Yes, because the Appellate Division’s finding that the police had consent to search the premises has support in the record and is thus beyond the Court of Appeals’ review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that whether a request for counsel is equivocal is a mixed question of law and fact. While the Court normally defers to the Appellate Division’s determination of such mixed questions if there is support in the record, in this case, there was no support for the finding that Porter’s request was equivocal. The Court emphasized that the only evidence was Porter’s statement and the officer’s notation, both indicating a clear request for counsel. The Court clarified, “This is not to say that utterance of the words defendant used would unequivocally invoke the right to counsel in every instance. But on this record, where there were no additional facts upon which a contrary inference could be drawn, further inquiry by the police was not permitted.” The Court found that because the police continued to question Porter after he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, his subsequent confession should have been suppressed. The Court upheld the Appellate Division’s finding regarding consent to search, stating that it was supported by the record and therefore beyond their review. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order, granted defendant’s motion to suppress statements and ordered a new trial.