People v. Wilson, 89 N.Y.2d 754 (1997)
Once a suspect is represented by counsel, even on an unrelated charge, police cannot conduct an investigatory lineup without making reasonable efforts to notify and secure the attorney’s presence, absent exigent circumstances.
Summary
Eric Wilson, arrested on Brooklyn charges, was identified in a lineup as the perpetrator of a Queens homicide. Wilson’s attorney on the Brooklyn charges informed Queens detectives that he also represented Wilson on the Queens matter and that no questioning or lineups should occur without him. Despite this, police conducted a lineup without notifying the attorney, and Wilson was identified. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Wilson was represented by counsel, the lineup conducted without notifying counsel violated his right to counsel, requiring suppression of the identification. The Court emphasized the importance of affording a defendant’s attorney the opportunity to be present at critical stages of the investigation.
Facts
Defendant Eric Wilson was arrested on Brooklyn charges of criminal possession of a stolen vehicle and a weapon. The weapon was linked to a Queens homicide. An eyewitness identified Wilson’s photo as being involved in the Queens shooting. Wilson’s attorney, Norman Berle, representing him on the Brooklyn charges, informed Queens detectives that he also represented Wilson regarding the Queens matter and that no questioning or lineups should occur without his presence. The Brooklyn charges were dismissed, and Queens detectives took Wilson into custody. Advised of his Miranda rights, Wilson waived them and denied knowledge of the homicide. A lineup was conducted without notifying Berle, and Wilson was identified as the shooter.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Wilson’s motion to suppress the lineup identification, finding that the attorney-client relationship terminated with the dismissal of the Brooklyn charges. Wilson was convicted of murder and other charges. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion to suppress and ordering a new trial, allowing the People to establish an independent source for the in-court identification. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether an investigatory lineup conducted without notifying a suspect’s attorney, after the attorney informed police of their representation and requested their presence at any questioning or lineups, violates the suspect’s right to counsel.
Holding
Yes, because once a suspect is actually represented by counsel, a waiver of the right to counsel without the attorney present is ineffective, and the police are obligated to make reasonable efforts to notify counsel of an impending lineup, absent exigent circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that while a suspect has no constitutional right to counsel at a pre-indictment lineup, if a suspect already has counsel, that attorney may not be excluded from the lineup proceedings. The Court found that attorney Berle’s notification to the Queens detectives that he represented Wilson on the Queens matter created a duty for the police to notify Berle of the lineup. The Court cited People v. LaClere, 76 N.Y.2d 670 (1990), emphasizing that the police took the risk that the evidence would be suppressed by conducting the lineup without notice to counsel. The Court also noted that no exigent circumstances justified proceeding without counsel. The Court reasoned that once an attorney-client relationship is established and communicated to law enforcement, the police cannot disregard the attorney’s request to be present. Allowing a lineup without notifying known counsel undermines the protections afforded by the right to counsel. The court emphasized, “In conducting the lineup in these circumstances, without some notice or other legally recognized excusal of counsel’s presence, the police took the risk that the adduced evidence would not be allowed” (People v. LaClere, supra, at 672).