Miranda Warnings – Motion to Suppress

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Ulanda M. Green

Case No.: 2018AP1350-CR

Officials: Brennan, Brash and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Miranda Warnings – Motion to Suppress

Ulanda M. Green appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered on her guilty plea, for receiving or concealing stolen property, a misdemeanor; and harboring/aiding a felon, a felony. She also appeals from the denial of her supplemental motion for postconviction relief. The charges related to what Green did with credit cards stolen from a man in a street robbery on July 25, 2016. Green attempted to use the credit cards, and then threw them in a sewer grate. The issue on review is whether the trial court erred in denying Green’s motion to suppress inculpatory statements she made to a law enforcement officer while in custody. Green argues that one statement should have been suppressed because it was made during a custodial interrogation before she was given a Miranda warning. Specifically, as the detective summarized the evidence prior to reading Green her Miranda rights, the detective stated that a person who lived with Green was also in custody.

Green also argues that incriminating statements after she was read her Miranda rights—admitting that she obtained the cards and threw them in the sewer grate—should have been suppressed because when she was given the Miranda warning and asked if she wished to make a statement, she unambiguously invoked her right to remain silent by saying, “No. I don’t know nothing.” After the detective asked “Just, we have to clarify that. Do you want to talk to me and clear your name, or, or–,” she responded, “Yeah, I’ll talk, but the only thing I can say is I ain’t did nothing.” We conclude that Green’s statement was a “disclaimer of any knowledge” and “an exculpatory statement” and therefore is not an unambiguous invocation of her right to remain silent. State v. Kramar, 149 Wis. 2d 767, 788, 440 N.W.2d 317 (1989) (“A defendant’s disclaimer of any knowledge … does not constitute an invocation of the defendant’s right to silence.”) and State v. Cummings, 2014 WI 88, ¶64, 357 Wis. 2d 1, 850 N.W.2d 915 (holding that the statement “I don’t know nothing about this” is “an exculpatory statement proclaiming … innocence” and “[s]uch a proclamation of innocence is incompatible with a desire to cut off questioning” (emphasis omitted)). Because Green’s first statement was a proclamation of innocence and a disclaimer of knowledge, it did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of her right to silence, and Green’s waiver was valid. We therefore affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.