The public-safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given; Miranda v Arizona; New York v Quarles; Physical evidence; People v Gioglio; An appeal without representation by counsel; People v Haywood

On remand, the court held that the circuit court did not err by finding defendant’s unwarned statement was subject to suppression, but remanded for the circuit court to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on whether the physical evidence obtained as a result of his unwarned statement must be suppressed. He was arrested for delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance and issued three citations for traffic violations. Following his preliminary exam, the district court dismissed the controlled substance charge and declined to bind him over for trial, finding the officers violated his Miranda rights when they asked him if there was “anything” in the vehicle they should know about. Despite the prosecution’s argument that the public-safety exception to Miranda applied, as the officers were objectively concerned for their safety, the district court found they should have known the question was likely to elicit an incriminating response. The circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the controlled substance charge, concluding that the officers’ question was overly broad and intended as an investigatory inquiry rather than to dispel a specific safety concern. In a prior appeal, the court remanded so that defendant could request the appointment of counsel. However, he made no request and no attorney appeared on his behalf, and the court granted the prosecution leave to appeal. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Michigan Supreme Court then remanded the case with directions that the court hold the matter in abeyance pending a decision in Haywood. The court subsequently vacated its decision and remanded for the appointment of appellate counsel for defendant. Represented by counsel, defendant appealed. The prosecution argued that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to bind him over for trial for manufacturing or delivering marijuana. The court disagreed, finding he was subject to custodial interrogation before he was given his Miranda warnings, the public-safety exception did not apply, and his statement should be suppressed. “[I]t was not outside the range of reasoned and principled outcomes for the district court to conclude that defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation prior to being advised of his rights under Miranda, and therefore, his responsive statement should be suppressed.” In addition, remand was necessary “for an evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of the physical evidence.” There was no “discussion by the parties or a determination made by the district court regarding the voluntariness of defendant’s statement to the police. This is an issue best put to the district court in the first instance.” Affirmed in part and remanded.