The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | April 2024
Continued from previous page
16 . Unsolicited hospital statement by drunk driver admissible at trial State v . Tiwana , 256 N . J . 33 ( 2023 ) Defendant Driver was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area . But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission . Miranda warnings were therefore not required , and defendant ’ s statement -- that she “ only had two shots prior to the crash ” -- is admissible at trial .
The Court considers whether an investigating detective ’ s self-introduction to defendant Amandeep K . Tiwana at her bedside in the hospital following a car crash initiated a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent warranting the administration of warnings under Miranda v . Arizona , 384 U . S . 436 ( 1966 ).
On April 28 , 2020 , defendant , while driving in Jersey City , struck a police officer and collided with two police cruisers . Defendant and three injured officers were transported to Jersey City Medical Center . Defendant ’ s blood alcohol content was 0.268 %, three times the legal limit . Detective Anthony Espaillat of the Regional Collision Investigation Unit of the Hudson County Prosecutor ’ s Office arrived at the hospital and spoke first to the injured officers in the emergency room .
Two uniformed police officers were stationed outside the curtain separating defendant ’ s bed from other patients . Detective Espaillat walked up to defendant ’ s bed , introduced himself as a detective with the Hudson County Prosecutor ’ s Office , and explained that he was assigned to investigate the accident . Espaillat testified that , as soon as he had spoken , defendant immediately complained of chest pain and said “ she only had two shots prior to the crash .” Espaillat directed defendant not to make any other statements . He clarified that he did not come to the hospital to ask her questions and that he wanted to interview her at a later date at the Prosecutor ’ s Office . The entire interaction lasted “ less than five minutes .” The next day , defendant went to the Prosecutor ’ s Office and invoked her Miranda rights .
A grand jury indicted defendant for three counts of assault by auto . Pretrial , the State moved to admit defendant ’ s statement at the hospital . Following an evidentiary hearing , the trial court denied the State ’ s motion and the Appellate Division affirmed . Both courts found that a custodial interrogation occurred at the hospital and the detective ’ s failure to give Miranda warnings rendered defendant ’ s statement inadmissible . The Court granted leave to appeal . 253 N . J . 431 ( 2023 ).
HELD : Defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area . But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission . Miranda warnings were therefore not required , and defendant ’ s statement -- that she “ only had two shots prior to the crash ” -- is admissible at trial .
1 . To protect a suspect ’ s right against self-incrimination , law enforcement officers must administer Miranda warnings when a suspect is in police custody and subject to interrogation . The parties do not dispute that defendant was in custody at the hospital . The sole issue is whether Detective Espaillat interrogated defendant in violation of his duty to first inform her of her right to remain silent .
2 . The United States Supreme Court in Rhode Island v . Innis clarified that “ interrogation ” for Miranda purposes occurs when a suspect “ is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent ,” which may include “ any words or actions on the part of the police . . . that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect .” 446 U . S . 291 , 300-01 ( 1980 ). But the Supreme Court stressed that the police “ cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions .” Id . at 301-02 .
3 . The Court reviews several New Jersey cases applying the Innis interrogation standard . For example , in State v . Hubbard , the Court concluded that the defendant was interrogated by police because “ the targeted questions reflect [ ed ] a clear attempt on the part of the detective to cause defendant to incriminate himself .” 222 N . J . 249 , 272 ( 2015 ). However , in State v . Beckler , the Appellate Division upheld the admissibility of the defendant ’ s custodial statements because they “ were unsolicited , spontaneous , and not made in response to questioning or its functional equivalent .” 366 N . J . Super . 16 , 25 ( App . Div . 2004 ).
4 . Here , defendant was not subject to a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent when she stated that she “ only had two shots prior to the crash .” No questioning occurred and Espaillat could not have foreseen that his introduction was reasonably likely to elicit an immediate incriminating response . Rather , defendant spontaneously made an unsolicited incriminating statement while in custody . The trial court and Appellate Division relied heavily on the three police officers in or just outside defendant ’ s bed area at the time Espaillat introduced himself . That fact alone may establish custody , but it does not establish interrogation .
17 . Trial court should have carefully watched video where police did not wait before search State v Nieves , 476 N . J . Super . 405 ( App . Div . 2023 ) In this appeal from an order denying defendant ' s motion to suppress evidence seized following the 5:00 a . m . execution of a knock-and-announce search warrant at a residence , the court finds the law enforcement officers did not wait a reasonable period after knocking and announcing their presence before forcibly breaching and entering the home ' s front door .
22
Continued on next page