The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot mislead suspects into waiving their right to an attorney, and that statements made to police after that occurs must be suppressed in court proceedings.
The decision arose from People v. Fenderson. Daren D. Fenderson was arrested by Detroit police in connection with a first-degree murder investigation and interrogated the following day. During questioning, he invoked his right to counsel and said he would need a court-appointed attorney. According to audio cited in the opinion, Detroit Police Sgt. Reginald Beasley then said either, “You don’t got one,” or, “You don’t get one.” After expressing confusion during an exchange with Beasley, Fenderson waived his Miranda right to an attorney.
The court held that the exchange did violate Fenderson’s Miranda rights, and as such, the incriminating statements made by Fenderson after that must be suppressed and cannot be used in further court proceedings.
“The police did not err because they failed to provide an attorney; the police here erred by suggesting that defendant could not be questioned with an attorney present because he did not have the money to hire one,” a summary of the decision published by the court reads. “This confusing and inaccurate information undermined the advice of rights previously read to defendant. By undermining the advice of rights and implying that the right to have an attorney present during questioning was predicated on the ability to pay for an attorney, police in this case violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda.”
The case was remanded back to the Wayne County Circuit Court for further proceedings. The trial court had initially granted a motion from Fenderson to suppress the statements made after he was convinced to waive his right to an attorney. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision in June 2024.
Court of Appeals Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett, the sole dissenter in the appellate decision, called Beasley’s statements to Fenderson’s questions about his right to counsel “confusing and misleading,” and noted “possible irregularities with the process that police followed to procure counsel for defendant.”
The ACLU of Michigan praised the decision, with deputy legal director Phil Mayor writing that the decision recognizes the importance of protections against self-incrimination and guaranteeing the right to counsel.
“Complying with these rights requires nothing more than for the government to act in a fair and non-manipulative manner towards the public,” he said in a press release. “It is heartening to see the Michigan Supreme Court recognize the importance of these principles, sending the message to law enforcement agencies throughout the state that they can’t use trickery and coercion to deprive suspects of an attorney when one is requested.”
“The Michigan Supreme Court did the right thing in ruling that police officers violate not only the U.S. Constitution, but also the Michigan Constitution when they use misleading tactics to pressure people into giving up their rights,” Terry Ding, a staff attorney for the national ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, added. “As the Court recognized, Michigan has a long history of upholding state law protections for people subjected to police interrogation. Those protections, which exist independently from federal law, are critical for safeguarding all Michiganders from abusive law enforcement practices.”
