People v. Garofolo, 46 N.Y.2d 592 (1979)

Once police are aware that an attorney has been retained to represent a suspect in custody, they cannot elicit a valid waiver of counsel from the suspect unless the attorney is present; police must also have adequate procedures to ensure attorneys can communicate with their clients without unreasonable delay.

Summary

Steven Garofolo confessed to murder after being interrogated by police. An attorney, retained by Garofolo’s father, attempted to contact him but was initially misinformed about his whereabouts due to inadequate police communication. The New York Court of Appeals held that Garofolo’s written confession should have been suppressed because it was obtained after the police were aware he had legal representation, but that the initial oral confession was admissible. The court also found that “casual” questioning by a correction officer violated Garofolo’s right to counsel. The case emphasizes the importance of clear police procedures to ensure attorney access to clients in custody and protects the right to counsel.

Facts

Garofolo called the victim’s parents to report seeing her with three men. Police contacted him at his workplace and he agreed to go to the homicide squad office. Detective Rodriguez noted inconsistencies in Garofolo’s story and gave him Miranda warnings. Garofolo confessed to murder. He then provided details about disposing of evidence. During the interrogation, Garofolo’s attorney, Eric Naiburg, retained by Garofolo’s father, tried to locate him. Naiburg called police headquarters but was initially told Garofolo was not in custody, even though he was being interrogated at a nearby location. The police located evidence based on Garofolo’s oral confession.

Procedural History

Garofolo was convicted of felony murder and second-degree murder. His pretrial motions to suppress his confessions and related evidence were denied. The Appellate Division upheld the judgment. Garofolo appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that his confessions were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and that evidence was illegally seized.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendant’s right to counsel was violated by the police department’s failure to promptly inform his attorney of his whereabouts while in custody.
2. Whether statements elicited from the defendant by a correction officer while in jail awaiting trial violated his right to counsel.
3. Whether a letter written by the defendant to his parents from jail was illegally seized and searched.

Holding

1. Yes, because once the police were aware that an attorney had been retained to represent Garofolo, they could not obtain a valid waiver of his right to counsel in the attorney’s absence, and the police procedures were inadequate to ensure timely communication between Garofolo and his attorney.
2. Yes, because the correction officer’s questions constituted custodial interrogation in the absence of counsel, violating Garofolo’s right to counsel.
3. No, because Garofolo was aware of the jail’s routine procedure to inspect prisoners’ correspondence before delivering the unsealed letter.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that, once police are aware that a lawyer has undertaken to represent a defendant in custody, the defendant cannot waive the assistance of counsel except in the lawyer’s presence, citing People v. Hobson and People v. Arthur. The Court emphasized that this rule protects not only the right to effective counsel but also the privilege against self-incrimination and the guarantee of due process. The court found that Naiburg’s call to police headquarters put the police on notice that Garofolo was represented, and any uncounseled statements taken after that point were inadmissible, citing People v. Pinzon. The court stated, “[T]he police should have been on notice that an attorney had appeared on behalf of the defendant then in custody”. The court criticized the police department’s lack of procedures to ensure effective communication between attorneys and clients in custody. The court held that the written confession, obtained after Naiburg’s call, should have been suppressed. The court found that the correction officer’s questioning of Garofolo in jail was a form of custodial interrogation that violated his right to counsel. The court explained, “Queries aimed at the issue of a defendant’s guilt or innocence must be proscribed irrespective of their underlying motivation.” The court found no error in the admission of the jail letter, as Garofolo knew that his mail would be read.