|
Download a Printable Version of this article Here  Adobe
PDF required
Arizona v. Londo, 2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS 131; 489 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3 (Nov 3, 2006)
The Court of Appeals of Arizona recently
decided Arizona v. Londo, and held that even though an officer
conducted a non-Mirandized custodial interrogation of a
drug suspect, the statement was admissible under the “rescue
doctrine.” i In this case, undercover officers were
working a drug sting. Shortly after Londo’s arrest
for selling crack cocaine, he began to gag, sway, vomit
and froth from the mouth. The narcotics detective believed
that Londo was experiencing a medical emergency and asked
him if he had swallowed crack cocaine. Londo admitted that
he had, and the detective immediately called paramedics.
He subsequently transported Londo to the emergency room
for treatment.
At trial, the judge allowed the admission
of Londo’s
statement that he had swallowed crack cocaine. Londo was
convicted and he appealed. He argued that the statement
was made in response to a custodial interrogation in which
the officer had not advised him of his Miranda rights.
In analyzing Londo’s appeal, the Court
first stated that the detective’s question as to whether
Londo swallowed crack cocaine was a “custodial interrogation” for
the purposes of Miranda. ii Londo
was under arrest and the officer asked a question that
was reasonably likely to elicit
an incriminating response. iii The
Court then stated that, despite the Miranda violation,
the statement should be admissible under an off-shoot
of the public safety exception, which
was developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York
v. Quarles, iv called the “private
safety exception.” The “private
safety exception” states that, when a suspect is
reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to
avoid serious
injury or death, a statement may be admitted even though
it was obtained in violation of Miranda provided
that it was obtained in an effort to save the suspect’s
life. v
Similarly, under the “rescue doctrine,” the
courts apply a three prong test which is as follows: (1)
the presence of an urgent need, and no other course of
action promises relief; (2) there is an objectively reasonable
concern of the need to save a human life by rescuing a
person
in danger; and (3) rescue is the primary purpose and motive
of the interrogator. vi The Court
went on to cite several cases from around the United States
that have applied the “private
safety exception” or the “rescue doctrine.” vii It
is important to note that not all states follow these
exceptions. viii
In Londo, the Court reasoned that this case
meets all requirements of the “rescue doctrine.” First, there was an
urgent need for the information because Londo was vomiting
and frothing at the mouth which indicated an immediate,
medical emergency. vix Second, the detective testified that,
based upon his experience, crack cocaine can be life threatening,
therefore he needed to determine the cause of the symptoms. x
Third, the detective testified that his primary motive for
the question was to prevent Londo from dying in his custody. xi
This was evidenced by the fact the detective immediately
called for paramedics and then took Londo to the emergency
room. Therefore, the Court of Appeals of Arizona held that
Londo’s statement, although a product of a custodial
interrogation in violation of Miranda, was nonetheless admissible
under the “private safety exception” or the “rescue
doctrine.”
____________________________________
Citations:
- Arizona v. Londo, 2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS
131; 489 Ariz. Adv. Rep 3 (November 3, 2006)
- 489 Ariz. Adv. Rep at 6.
- Id.
- 467 U.S. 649 (1984).
- 489 Ariz. Adv. Rep. at 9. (citing People
v. Stevenson, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 880-881
(Cal.
Ct. App. 1996)) (holding that statement by defendant
that he had
swallowed crack cocaine was admissible despite lack of Miranda warnings under
the rescue doctrine.)
- Id. at 10 (citing People v. Riddle, 83 Cal.
App. 3d 563, 148 Cal.Rptr. 170, 177 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1978)
- Id. at 9 (citing People v. Stevenson, 59
Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 880-881 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996))
(holding that statement by defendant that he
had swallowed crack
cocaine was admissible despite lack of Miranda warnings under the rescue
doctrine.); Benson v. State, 698 So. 2d 333,
337-338 (Fla. Distr. Ct. App. 1997 (holding
the “necessity of protecting the defendant’s health must take precedence
over the procedural safeguards of Miranda.”); State v. Betances, 265 Conn.
493, 828 A. 2d 1248, 1255-57 (Conn. 2003)(extended the public safety exception
to Miranda and held defendant’s response to the question of “whether
he swallowed drugs” was admissible even absent Miranda); Thomas v. State,
128 Md. App. 274, 737 A.2d 622 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999)(holding that Miranda
warnings were not needed when asking if a defendant who bit an officer had a
transmittable disease); State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93, 96-97 (Minn. 1992) (adopting
and applying the rescue doctrine to admit defendant's statements to the police
to locate his wife who was missing in a wildlife refuge); People v. Swoboda,
190 Misc. 2d 214, 737 N.Y.S.2d 821, 822-828 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2002) (distinguishing
the rescue doctrine from the public safety exception and applying the rescue
doctrine to admit statements of the defendant relating to the location of her
missing baby); State v. Kunkel, 137 Wis. 2d 172, 404 N.W.2d 69, 76 (Wis. Ct.
App. 1987) (applying the rescue doctrine to admit the defendant's statements
relating to the whereabouts of his missing daughter).
- Id. at 10. citing State v. Montoya, 937 P.2d
145, 151-52 (Utah Ct. App. 1997)(holding that
the court went far beyond the purpose of the “public safety exception” when
they attempted to expand it to a “private safety exception” applicable
to the defendants personal safety.)
- Id. at 11.
- Id.
- Id.
|
Related
Training
Defending
Law Enforcement Litigation (W.S.T.C.)
Related References
The Law & Best Practices of Successful Police Operations
Related
Articles
Cocain Discovered in Auto Leads to Probable Cause to Arrest All Occupants
When Suspect is NOT in Custody, Seibert Analysis is NOT Needed
Sponsored
Links
|
