People v. Rowell, 59 N.Y.2d 727 (1983)

Under the New York Constitution, once a suspect unequivocally invokes the right to counsel, any subsequent waiver of that right, obtained in the absence of counsel, is ineffective, rendering any statements or evidence obtained as a result inadmissible.

Summary

The defendant, after being arrested and advised of his rights, stated “I might need a lawyer.” Despite this, police continued questioning him and obtained a signed consent to search his cabin. The New York Court of Appeals held that Rowell’s initial statement constituted an invocation of his right to counsel under the New York Constitution. Consequently, any subsequent waiver of that right, made without the presence of an attorney, was invalid, and the evidence obtained from the search of his cabin and his statements were inadmissible. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the trial court.

Facts

Following his arrest, Rowell was informed of his Miranda rights. He was then confronted with statements from the victim and her mother. In response, Rowell stated, “I might need a lawyer.” The police officer, instead of ceasing questioning, provided Rowell with a local telephone directory to find an attorney and also told him that further legal proceedings would distress the victim. Rowell then made statements and signed a consent form authorizing the police to search his cabin.

Procedural History

Prior to trial, Rowell moved to suppress the statements he made to the police and the evidence seized from his cabin. The trial court denied this motion. Subsequently, Rowell pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding that Rowell had initially invoked his right to counsel but subsequently waived it under the totality of the circumstances and that the police officer’s statements were not coercive. Rowell then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether, under the New York Constitution, a suspect’s statement indicating a possible need for counsel constitutes an invocation of the right to counsel, such that any subsequent waiver of that right without the presence of counsel is ineffective and renders any obtained evidence inadmissible.

Holding

Yes, because once a defendant invokes the right to counsel guaranteed by the New York Constitution, Article I, § 6, any waiver obtained in the absence of counsel is ineffective.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the protection afforded by the New York Constitution regarding the right to counsel. It stated that the Appellate Division’s finding that Rowell initially invoked his right to counsel with the statement “I might need a lawyer” was determinative. The court explicitly stated that “once the defendant invokes the right to counsel guaranteed by NY Constitution, article I, § 6, any waiver obtained in the absence of counsel is ineffective.” This rule applies both to statements obtained through police questioning and evidence seized as a result of an uncounseled consent to search. Citing People v. Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 and People v. Johnson, 48 NY2d 565, the court reinforced that any waiver obtained without counsel after the right has been invoked is invalid. The court thus held that the motion to suppress should have been granted entirely, reversing the Appellate Division’s order.