Opinion
ID. No. 0603024060.
Submitted: September 22, 2006.
Decided: October 2, 2006
Michael C. Heyden, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant Kevin Winn.
Richard Zemble, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Deputy Attorney General.
OPINION
Defendant Kevin Winn is charged with robbery first degree and related offenses. The incident leading to his arrest occurred when Winn was 16 years old. He has now moved to suppress his videotaped confession, alleging that the police violated his rights as a juvenile by refusing him access to his mother, by not immediately taking him to a magistrate and by ignoring his request for an attorney.
The videotape shows Defendant being questioned from 6:00 p.m. until 8:40 p.m. on December 23, 2005. As Defendant concedes, he made certain incriminating statements early in the interrogation. After about 30 minutes, Defendant asked to speak to his mother. Twenty minutes later, his mother was ushered into the room, and the police left them alone. The police resumed the interrogation about 15 minutes later. After another 30 minutes of questioning, the police again gave Winn the opportunity to talk in private with his mother. After their discussion, Winn confessed to his participation in a robbery and discussed details with the police. At 8:40 p.m., he was ushered from the room in order to appear before a magistrate to be arraigned.
Thus the videotape determinatively contradicts Defendant's assertions that the police officers refused to let him to confer with his mother. Furthermore, there is no requirement that a parent, guardian or other adult be present with a juvenile during a police interrogation. According to statute and court rule, the police must make reasonable efforts to notify a minor's guardian immediately after placing the minor under arrest. In this case, when Defendant asked to see his mother, the police went to look for her and returned with her 20 minutes later. The Court finds that police complied with the mandatory notification requirement.
Palmer v. State, 626 A.2d 1358, 1361 (Del. 1993) (construing DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 1004 and Fam. Ct. R. 5(b)). See also Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38, 43 (Del. 1979).
Id.
Defendant also argues that he was not immediately presented to a magistrate, in violation of Family Court Rule 5(b) and 10 Del. Code § 1004. The videotape shows that the interview ended after approximately one hour and forty minutes and that as Defendant was being led from the room, one of the officers explained that Defendant would then be taken to court to be arraigned .
The law does not require that a minor be presented immediately before a judge, but an unreasonable delay is prohibited. The significant hours of detention are those prior to the confession, not those following the confession. Each case must be considered on its own facts in light of all the other circumstances.
Id. at 1363 (citing Dennis v. State, 1993 WL 169136, at *3 (Del.Supr.)). See also State v. Hanna, Del.Super., 542 A.2d 794, 798 (1988), rev'd on other grounds, Del.Supr., 591 A.2d 158 (1991).
Id. at 1363 (citing Haug v. State, 406 A.2d 38, 41 (Del. 1979)).
Torres v. State, 1992 WL 53406, at *6 (Del.Super.) (citing State v. Hanna, 542 A.2d at 799).
The videotape is the only evidence before the Court, and it shows an interrogation which lasted approximately one hour and forty minutes, with at least two breaks where Defendant conferred with his mother. There is no evidence that Defendant was held for any length of time prior to questioning or for any period following questioning. Under these circumstances., the Court finds that on hour and forty minutes is not an unreasonable delay in presenting Defendant to a magistrate.
Torres v. State, 1992 WL 53406, at *6 (affirming this Court's finding of no unreasonable delay when juvenile was in custody for five hours and presented to a magistrate 2½ hours later). See also Palmer v. State, 626 A.2 at 1363 (reversing this Court's finding that a ten and ½ hour detention was unreasonable).
Defendant also argues that after he made certain incriminating statements, he told the police he wanted to talk with his lawyer before proceeding with any more questions and that the police ignored his request. These assertions are correct. The videotape shows that after Defendant's mother arrived in the interrogation room, and the two had spoken in private for about 15 minutes, the police officers returned. Before answering any more questions, Defendant stated that he wanted to talk to his lawyer. The police officers ignored this unambiguous request and continued to question him in clear violation of Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to silence. The Court concludes that all of Defendant's statements made after the request for an attorney must be suppressed. It Is So Ordered.
State v. Cabrera, 2000 WL 33113956, at 12 (citing McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 177 (1991)).