High Court Rejects U.S. on ‘Hiding’ of Suspects

The California Supreme Court on Thursday brushed aside a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and ruled that police must tell a suspect being held for questioning that his lawyer has arrived at the station house to confer with him.

The court, barring the use of a confession obtained in a Contra Costa County drug case, said that even when the suspect has previously waived his rights to silence and to counsel, he still must be given the opportunity to talk to the lawyer before interrogation can begin or resume.

In a 5-1 decision, the justices also said that officers may not “mislead, delay or dissuade” the attorney in his effort to see his client.

The court flatly rejected a ruling last March by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a confession obtained after police misled an attorney trying to see a suspect under interrogation and withheld that fact from the suspect.

The federal high court, in a 6-3 decision, said there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution to require officers to go beyond warning a suspect of his rights by providing “any and all information” that might prove useful.

But the state court, in a lead opinion by Justice Joseph R. Grodin, concluded that the state Constitution requires the court to go further in protecting the rights of criminal defendants than does federal law.

“Where the police mislead or bar the suspect’s attorney, while keeping the suspect ignorant that he has available counsel, they engage in an unconscionable evasion of his absolute right to consult with his available lawyer,” Grodin wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Stanley Mosk and Cruz Reynoso.

Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, joined by Justice Allen E. Broussard, issued a separate opinion agreeing that the confession should be suppressed. But she sharply criticized the plurality for not extending the ruling to situations where an attorney has telephoned police but is not yet present at the station house.

“A call from a lawyer that he is ‘on the way’ or will be there in a few hours may motivate police to hasten questioning of the suspect so that they will complete it before the attorney arrives,” Bird warned.

In dissent, Justice Malcolm M. Lucas chided the majority for refusing to follow the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and pointed out that the suspect in this case had received a “Miranda warning” of his right to counsel at least twice before agreeing to be questioned.

Justice Edward A. Panelli did not participate in the case.

Deputy state Atty. Gen. Dane R. Gillette, who had urged the court to follow the federal high court precedent, called the decision “incorrect” and said the state may ask for a rehearing of the case.

Decision Praised

“It’s almost an invitation to ambulance-chasing,” Gillette said. “As long as somebody shows up at the station house with a State Bar identification card in his hand, the police will have to let him see a suspect they want to question.”

Attorneys for the defendant in the case praised the decision, saying it would help prevent police from deceiving attorneys who want to talk to their clients before interrogation.

“There have been instances of police ‘hiding’ a suspect from his lawyer,” attorney William Everett Glass of Martinez said. “This will put the police on notice that they can’t do this . . . and that they have to protect the right of the defendant to see a lawyer.”

“We’re delighted with the result,” added attorney Steven V. Bomse of San Francisco. “Any time the California Supreme Court ends up rejecting a U.S. Supreme Court precedent it must be regarded as an important victory.”

9-Month Sentence

The case before the court involved a confession obtained by Walnut Creek police in 1980 from Charles Caleb Houston, later convicted on charges of selling cocaine and sentenced to nine months in jail.

According to court records, on the night of his arrest, Houston waived his right to silence and to counsel and made incriminating admissions, unaware that an attorney retained for him by friends had arrived at the station house and wanted to see him.

The justices, reviewing the case on appeal, said it was not clear whether Houston’s interrogation had been completed before the attorney arrived. But because the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it had been completed, the confession must be held inadmissible and Houston’s conviction reversed, the court said.

Anti-Crime Initiative

Grodin pointed out that in contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court holding, decisions by courts in 12 other states had concluded that when police block a suspect’s access to an attorney they know wants to see him, any waiver by the suspect of his right to counsel must be invalidated and his confession held inadmissible.

The court noted that its decision to exclude the confession was not affected by Proposition 8, the 1982 anti-crime initiative that went into effect after the Houston case began.

The justices thus far have upheld provisions of the initiative that require state courts to follow federal court precedents on search-and-seizure issues--but have not yet fully indicated how the measure will affect cases involving confessions.