Facts: Defendant Anthony Baye appeals the denial of
his motion to suppress statements made to the police in connection with a
series of arson fires that occurred in the early morning of December 27, 2009. These
fifteen fires destroyed a number of homes and buildings in a primarily
residential area of Northhampton and resulted in two deaths. Baye participated
in a series of interviews with the police in late December and early January,
and during the third and final interrogation on January 4, 2010, admitted
responsibility for the fires and was subsequently arrested.
The police
officers informed Baye that he was not under arrest but nonetheless read him the
Miranda warnings at the start of the 10-hour session. However, they did not ask
him to sign a written waiver of his Miranda rights. Throughout the
interrogation, the police officers made several misrepresentations to the
defendant: (1) misleading statements about the strength of the case against him;
(2) assurances that the district attorney would follow their charging
recommendations; and (3) mischaracterizations of the law of accident and felony-murder.
Baye initially refused to speak to the officers, and after forty-five minutes
asked for an attorney. The officers responded that they could “clear this up”
if only the defendant spoke to them without a lawyer, and after Baye again
requested a lawyer, worrying that he would be “accused of something,” they
reassured him that they would not accuse or charge him. It was only after
receiving these assurances that Baye started answering the questions that
eventually led to his confession.
Procedural Posture: The defendant filed
this motion to suppress the incriminatory statements from the January 4
interrogation on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of his right
to counsel under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 12 of
the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. His second basis for suppression implicates
the interrogation tactics used against him, which he argues were sufficiently
misleading and coercive so as to render his statements involuntary. This interlocutory
appeal arose from the motion judge’s denial of the motion to suppress.
Standard of Review: The motion judge’s
findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, but the appellate court
independently reviews the application of constitutional principles to the
facts.
Issue #1: Whether the statements were obtained in
violation of the defendant’s right to counsel?
Although
the court discussed this issue, it did not resolve it because it found that the
contested statements should be suppressed on other grounds. Briefly, the court found
that Baye’s repeated requests to speak with an attorney were unambiguous as to
his intent and definitively revoked any potential implied waiver of his rights in
the absence of a written waiver. However, the court also noted that Miranda
protections are only applicable to custodial interrogations, and the record was
insufficient to determine if a reasonable person in Baye’s position would have
believed that he was in custody. In light of its decision on voluntariness, the
court declined to remand for resolution of this question.
Issue #2: Whether the incriminating statements were
voluntary and freely given?
In motions
to suppress statements, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant’s self-incriminating statements were not
the result of coercion or intimidation. The court examined the police tactics
challenged by the defendant and found them to be severely problematic. Although
there is no bright-line rule against isolated incidents of improper tactics,
the frequency and severity of questionable tactics combined to render the
interrogation coercive. The officers in this case gave Baye concrete and repeated
reassurances that a confession would allow him to avoid “catastrophic”
consequences and supported their promises with tales of their influence with
the district attorney. Police officers may suggest to defendants that it would
be “better” if they tell the truth, but the officers’ actions in this case went
beyond the permissible. Furthermore, the police officers applied inappropriate
pressure by greatly exaggerating the strength of the evidence against Baye
while simultaneously reassuring him that confessing to a “prank” would allow
him to avoid felony-murder and serious arson charges. Lastly, their
representation that he did not need a lawyer in response to his repeated
requests misled Baye into believing that any statements he made would not be
used against him. These coercive tactics rendered Baye unable to make a
rational and informed decision to confess, and thus his statements were involuntary
and inadmissible.
Judgment: The denial of the defendant’s motion to
suppress is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with the opinion. (GC)
