Conviction Reversed: Police Violated Suspect’s Constitutional Rights, Appeals Court Says

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

Aug. 28, 2012 – Milwaukee police detectives who proceeded with interrogation of a felony murder suspect despite his numerous requests for counsel violated the suspect’s constitutional rights, and now the suspect’s conviction is overturned, a state appeals court has ruled.

In April 2009, police questioned Pierre Conner in the armed robbery and homicide of a known drug dealer. On three separate occasions, Conner asked for a lawyer. After each request, detectives say Conner reinitiated questioning and claimed he just wanted more time.

Police did not immediately cease questioning, but ultimately stopped after Conner’s third request for counsel. At about 4 a.m. the next morning, allegedly without Conner’s request, detectives removed Conner from his cell and began questioning him again, for a fourth time.

Ultimately, Conner waived his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements.

The circuit court denied Conner’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements and a motion to reconsider, finding that his requests for a lawyer were not unequivocal and Conner was responsible for the detectives’ reinitiating the police interrogations.

Ultimately, he pled guilty to attempted robbery with use of force as a party to a crime. The circuit court denied his postconviction motion for relief and Conner appealed.

But in State v. Conner, 2011AP2298-CR (Aug. 14, 2012), the District II Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Conner unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and did not reinitiate further interrogation that led to incriminating statements.

Under Miranda v. Arizona, criminal suspects have constitutional right to request counsel during police interrogation, at which point police must cease questioning unless the suspect reinitiates a willingness to talk about the crime. Conner’s requests were clear, the appeals court ruled.

“[T]he record makes clear that Conner unequivocally requested an attorney,” wrote Judge Patricia Curley for a three-judge panel. “Once Conner clearly and unequivocally requested counsel, he had no obligation to re-assert his previously invoked right.”

The appeals court also ruled that Conner did not reinitiate questioning under U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin jurisprudence, distinguishing State v. Hampton, 2010 WI App 169, 330 Wis. 2d 531, 793 N.W.2d 901, in which the court held the suspect did reinitiate questioning.

The evidence suggests that Conner responded to police-initiated custodial interrogation, the appeals panel explained, “which is not enough to establish that he reinitiated questioning.”