SUPREME COURT RULES THAT POLICE MAY QUESTION A SUSPECT, EVEN IF SUSPECT WAS CHARGED WITH ANOTHER CRIME ARISING OUT OF FACTUALLY RELATED EVENTS


NAPO filed brief in Texas v. Cobb, to overturn exclusion of a voluntary
confession and remove a serious obstacle to questioning suspects. 

Washington, DC - In a 5-4 decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not require a court to suppress a voluntary statement of a confessed murderer of a mother and her young daughter, obtained through proper police work. A Texas appellate court had excluded the statement because the police did not obtain permission from the counsel representing the defendant on a previously charged separate offense of burglary, that was closely related to the subsequent murders. In reversing the Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled that because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (after a criminal charge) is "offense specific," that right does not necessarily extend to other offenses not yet charged that are "factually related" to the one that has already been charged, as long as both crimes require proof of some different facts. The Court also found that the police in this case "scrupulously followed" the Miranda requirements. (p.3) The Court stated, "[T]he Constitution does not negate society's interest in the ability of police to talk to witnesses and suspects, even those who have been charged with other offenses." (p.9)

The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) and its affiliate, the National Law Enforcement Officers' Rights Center, together with the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas (CLEAT), filed an amici curiae brief in this case in support of law enforcement officers.

NAPO Executive Director Robert T. Scully stated, "We are gratified that the Court has removed an unreasonable obstacle to the questioning of suspects. This was an important case for law enforcement for two reasons. First, if the Supreme Court had not reversed this Texas court decision, the brutal murderer of a mother and child would have been set free. Second, law enforcement officers in Texas and then elsewhere would have been deterred from questioning suspects, and fewer crimes would have been solved. Police officers would have taken the risk that each time they questioned a suspect and then obtained a voluntary confession or other incriminating information, the suspect's statement could be thrown out as evidence through no fault of the officers involved - an incredible result!"


Scully elaborated, "Timely questioning of a potential suspect to follow up on new leads can often be critical, often the only way to resolve a case. In its decision the Supreme Court specifically recognized an earlier decision by the Court, which stated that voluntary admissions of guilt 'are essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting and punishing those who violate the law.' (p. 9) Effective law enforcement requires proper interrogation of suspects, without the uncertainty and risk in each case that a confession might be thrown out due to unforeseen circumstances, which would likely deter or seriously delay officers in tens of thousands of serious felony investigations, as the Court recognized. "

Scully continued, "In questioning suspects, police officers should not have to try to determine in each case whether there is a prior charged offense, or, if they discover it by chance, whether that charge is sufficiently closely factually related, so as to require notification to and permission to question from the attorney representing the suspect on the first charge. Without the Supreme Court's common-sense decision, a police officer could never have questioned Cobb or anyone else who may have committed more than one offense during an event or related series of events, without assuming the risk of an eventual suppressed confession, unless the officer were to take the following supposed precaution. An officer could 1) ask a suspect about other charges, 2) hopefully obtain an honest answer, and 3) then notify the defendant's counsel handling the first charge, thus protecting the confession from being excluded. However, such notification would be very counterproductive because it usually leads to counsel's refusal to permit any such questioning without counsel's presence and thus usually results in no confession at all, thereby having the same effect as a court-ordered exclusion of the confession."

Scully concluded, "The effective efforts by the Odessa, TX, police in securing Cobb's confession after waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege have now been validated as constitutional. Cobb will now be held accountable for these heinous crimes. Law enforcement officers are pleased that a majority of the Supreme Court overturned a constitutionally unnecessary and far-reaching impediment which would have significantly undermined legitimate police efforts to question many, if not most, suspects in felony crime investigations."


For more information or for interviews, please call Stephen McSpadden at 202-842-4420.


The National Association of Police Organizations is a national coalition of 4,000 police associations and unions, representing 229,000 sworn law enforcement officers and 11,000 retired officers, as well as 100,000 citizens dedicated to effective law enforcement and the due process and other rights of officers. The Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, a NAPO member, represents police officer associations and unions representing 12,000 officers and is the largest statewide law enforcement organization in Texas.

¹ Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, AThe dissent seems to presuppose that officers will possess complete knowledge of the circumstances surrounding an incident, such that the officers will be able to tailor their investigation to avoid addressing factually related offenses.  Such an assumption, however, ignores the reality that police often are not yet aware of the exact sequence and scope of invents that they investigatingB indeed, that is why police must investigate in the first place.  Deterred by the possibility of violating the Sixth Amendment, police likely would refrain from questioning certain defendants.@ (pages 10-11)