Constitutional – Questioning By Federal Agents – 5th And 6th Amendments

Listen to this article

Where a defendant charged with arson has moved to suppress statements he made to federal agents, the motion should be denied because the admission of those statements would not violate the defendant’s 5th or 6th Amendment rights.

“Here, when [defendant Edward] Coker met with the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] agents at the Lynn fire department, he was not under arrest, and there were no restraints on his freedom of movement. Coker voluntarily followed the agents to the fire department. The agents told him that he was free to refuse to answer questions and could leave at any time. During the interview, Coker was seated closest to an unlocked door. When he decided he wanted to end the interview, he was able to walk out of the building unhindered. He was not in custody. The statements he gave could not have been obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel because that right did not attach during the non-custodial interview. …

“When the BATF agents interviewed Coker, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached as to the federal prosecution, because it had not yet been commenced. That Coker’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had previously attached as to the separate state prosecution is inconsequential. Because the Sixth Amendment protection is offense-specific, and because state and federal arson prosecutions, despite their apparent redundancy, are distinct offenses, the government may use Coker’s uncounseled admissions to federal investigators in the federal prosecution, though state authorities would be barred from using them in a state prosecution.”

United States v. Coker (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-197-03) (13 pages) (O’Toole, J.) (USDC) (Criminal Action No. 03-CR-10113-GAO) (Dec. 23, 2003).