People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670 (1990)

When an attorney explicitly informs the court and requests that the police be notified that they represent a defendant on a specific charge, the defendant’s right to counsel attaches, requiring that the attorney be notified of any impending investigatory lineup unless exigent circumstances exist.

Summary

LaClere was convicted of attempted murder after being identified in a lineup conducted without his attorney present. His attorney had informed the court that they represented LaClere on the charge for which he was being arrested and asked the judge to inform the arresting officers that no statements should be taken without counsel present. The judge complied, but the police conducted a lineup without notifying the attorney. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the attorney’s explicit entry into the case and the judicial notification to the police triggered LaClere’s right to counsel at the lineup, requiring notification to the attorney absent exigent circumstances.

Facts

LaClere was arrested after a court appearance on an unrelated matter. His attorney informed the presiding judge that they also represented LaClere on the matter for which he was then being arrested and requested the judge to advise the arresting officers not to take any statements from him without counsel present. The judge complied. The police then conducted a lineup without notifying LaClere’s attorney, where he was identified.

Procedural History

The initial court denied the motion to suppress the lineup identification. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, citing precedent that the police were not obliged to inform defense counsel of the investigatory lineup. A dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether, when an attorney has explicitly entered a case, sought judicial protective relief, and secured a court’s alert to the arresting officers that the defendant is represented on the charge for which an imminent lineup is to be conducted, the police are required to notify the attorney of the lineup.

Holding

Yes, because counsel’s announced entry into the case and explicit solicitation of formal judicial admonitory relief attached the defendant’s right to counsel, requiring notification of the lineup absent some legally recognized excuse.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the formal point of counsel’s entry into the case, their representational activity, and the solicitation of judicial intervention were sufficient to trigger the entitlement to counsel at the investigatory lineup. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Coates, where the defendant had requested counsel’s presence, but the attorney had not formally entered the case. Here, the attorney had explicitly informed the court and requested that the police be notified of their representation. The Court quoted People v. Blake stating, “When an accused, at any stage, before or after arraignment, to the knowledge of the law enforcement agencies, already has counsel, his right or access to counsel may not be denied”. The court found that prompt notification to counsel would have been a feasible and reasonable accommodation of defendant’s right and that there was no indication that notifying counsel would have significantly inconvenienced the witnesses or undermined the advantages of a prompt identification.