By: Derek Hawkins//February 28, 2018//
WI Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Daniel J. H. Bartelt
Case No.: 2018 WI 16
Focus: Motion to Supress
This review concerns the point in time at which a person is “in custody” for purposes of Miranda. Daniel J.H. Bartelt asks us to overturn a decision of the court of appeals, affirming the circuit court’s judgment entered in favor of the State regarding Bartelt’s motion to suppress incriminating statements, and concluding that Bartelt was not in custody at the time the statements were made.
Bartelt presents two issues: first, whether Bartelt’s confession to a serious crime transformed his custody status from noncustodial to “in custody;” and second, whether Bartelt’s request for counsel was unequivocal such that police officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights when they questioned him the following day without counsel present.
On the first issue we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances attendant to his interview, Bartelt’s confession did not transform his custody status. Rather, Bartelt was not in custody until Detectives Joel Clausing and Aaron Walsh of the Washington County Sheriff’s Department took his cell phone, approximately ten minutes after his confession, and instructed him to remain in the interview room. Because we determine that Bartelt was not in custody until this point, which was after his alleged request for counsel, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether his alleged request for counsel was unequivocal. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.
Decision
Concur:
Dissent: A.W. BRADLEY, J. dissents, joined by ABRAHAMSON,