text:
What Should Be Avoided In order To Smooth Skin
What Should Be Avoided In order To Smooth Skin
Food intake affects the health and appearance of the skin to keep it looking beautiful. Here are the foods (and drinks) that should be avoided if you want to maximize pretty healthy skin.
Salty snacks
Murad, renowned dermatologist, states that sodium intake can suck the moisture and makes skin dry. This is what causes eye bags, swollen eyes, and swollen. Avoid salty snacks to still look beautiful.
Just like sodium, alcohol makes the skin dry. Alcohol makes the top layer of blood vessels, which produce some form of inflammation of skin damage.
Fried foods
When heated to high temperatures, vegetable oils such as those used in most fast food restaurants could lead to 4-hydroxy-trans-2-nonenal which is also called HNE. This can cause dead skin cells. Dead skin can cause dry skin, chapped, and dull.
Refined carbohydrates
This means candy, cakes, and other processed foods. Such foods full of sugar and white flour that makes the supply of androgens, hormones in the body's production of oil, rising. A study showed that low-sugar diet participants who do not have a lot of acne than those who consume more processed food. Worse, these carbohydrates can cause glycation, collagen and elastin that make it easier to absorb and damaged by free radicals.
Read more: Tips for Healthy Teeth and White
Read more: Tips for Healthy Teeth and White


text:
You may get an incredible bathtub transforming challenge accomplished for beneath $5K, however it's important to manage your expectations if that is your objective. Try Remodeling Magazines " Price vs. Worth" article for regional transforming pricing on numerous initiatives. They have quite a lot of choices in terms of items like bath lighting, bogs, sinks, vanities and cabinetry as a result of they arrive straight from completely different manufacturers.
Whether you're looking for bathroom remodeling ideas or rest room pictures that can assist you update your outdated one, begin with these inspiring ideas for master bogs , visitor bogs, and powder rooms. I needed it to be a full bathroom so there would be two full loos in my house.
Because the structure and storage choices are pretty normal, fascinating materials and finishes are key for serving to any lavatory transforming challenge stand out. Prospects often find that they can save a great deal of money and time by deciding upfront which tiles mouldings fixtures and appurtenances they are going to use and having all the things on the site where the work is to be performed.
Give your rest room design a lift with just a little planning and our inspirational rest room remodel ideas. A small lavatory should cost you $1-2k labor for reframing, concrete board, tile, bathroom, vanity and accessories install. When you need the lavatory to be handicapped-accessible, then the material prices can go up another $2,000 or $three,000.
Shut off the valves, and then turn the water back on to the remainder of the house. To your lavatory to function well, it is vital to install vent and drain traces of the proper size and slope. For my area, the typical value for a shower transform was ~ 14K final year to ~ 18K this 12 months.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SCHWALBACH: Procter & Gamble in Germany has lost its corporate PR
director Christel Karesch, who has retired after 36 years with the FMCG
firm. Karesch will not be directly replaced following a PR review, which
has seen the corporate PR unit merged with scientific and consumer PR,
headed by Detlef Schermer. Schermer now heads all P&G Germany


text:
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an emerging technology for performing high-resolution cross-sectional imaging. OCT is analogous to ultrasound imaging, except that it uses light instead of sound. OCT can provide cross-sectional images of tissue structure on the micron scale in situ and in real time. This is a wonderful instrument that helps doctors in determining the diagnosis and the plan for treatment. -MDA
Ocular Surgery News U.S. Edition, October 24, 2014
Technological evolution, with optical coherence tomography(OCT) in the forefront, is gradually but radically changing the diagnostic and management approach to glaucoma. Earlier detection of structural changes allows prediction of functional consequences and quantification of progression.
"The physiological structure-function relationship is beyond question and the basis for glaucoma management; however, the available technologies to assess either aspect are far from perfect. Current developments suggest that the threshold for detecting damage might be lower in structural imaging than in standard automated perimetry," Herbert Reitsamer, MD, said. "The impact of structural documentation on therapy decisions has not been so great in the past but will become increasingly important with the high specificity and sensitivity of emerging technologies."
Herbert Reitsamer, MD, noted that the impact of structural documentation in therapy decisions has not been great in the past but will become increasingly important with the high specificity and sensitivity of emerging technologies.
"OCT will be able to detect glaucomatous abnormalities prior to our current functional measurement technology being able to detect them, and the earlier in the disease that you can detect damage or progression, the more likely it is you are able to prevent further progression with less intensive intervention," OSN Glaucoma Board Member and co-inventor of OCT Joel S. Schuman, MD,said.
Wolfgang Drexler, PhD, who played a leading role as a biomedical engineer in the development of OCT, added that "quantifying function is significantly harder than quantifying morphology. Visual field is not a very precise technique, and progress in this area is much more challenging."
According to Schuman, an OCT system is a better method of detecting and following glaucoma once it hits a tipping point of 75 µm of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness because it shows a good correspondence between structural and functional loss….
Read more: http://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/glaucoma/news/print/ocular-surgery-news/%7B371c247b-864b-4167-b3ed-21f22129512f%7D/emerging-technologies-open-new-horizons-in-glaucoma-structural-evaluation-management-OCT


text:
Colorado GOP lawmaker insists posting racist things on Facebook doesn't make her racist
A Colorado Republican lawmaker has apologized for writing Facebook posts that disparaged Muslims and African Americans, but she's insisting that these racist posts do not make her racist.
The Denver Post reports that Judy Reyher — a Colorado Republican who was appointed to the state legislature this week — posted multiple offensive statements and memes on her Facebook page, including one that questioned why Muslims would come to the United States if they "hate pork, beer, bikinis, Jesus and freedom of speech."
Reyher also questioned the authenticity of former President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and subsequently told the Denver Post that "the black community and the Democrats are the most racist group of people that exist," while also claiming that black people "hate white people with a passion."
Despite all of these racist statements, Reyher insisted to the Denver Post that she is anything but racist.
"I would like to apologize for the comments or posts on Facebook that have been found offensive and racist," she wrote to the newspaper. "However, the fact of the matter is, I am not a racist. This country was founded by immigrants, and I embrace all Americans, no matter their walk of life. Diversity is what makes America, America."


text:
It's an exciting time in Vermont, as the second annual Vermont Cider Week debuts again for a week-long celebration of all things CIDER! Vermont Cider Week "connects Vermont cider makers to buyers from top restaurants, bars and retail shops across the Green Mountain State. Vermont Cider Week helps bring awareness, new business, and growth to the states cideries." This week long event isn't just for the cider makers, it's also for the trade industry and for the consumers who have an appreciation for Vermont ciders.
Vermont Cider Week is a "collaboration between Vermont craft cider makers to showcase the best hard cider made from the best apples on the planet." The following VT Cider Makers will be participating all over the state, which include: Boyden Valley Winery & Spirits, Boyer's Hard Ciders & Wines, Champlain Orchards, Citizen Cider, Eden Ice Cider, Fable Farm Cider, Flag Hill Farm, Forbidden Orchards, Hall Home Place, Newhall Farm, Shacksbury, Stowe Cider, Woodchuck Hard Cider, Whetstone Ciderworks, Windfall Orchard & Farnum Hill Ciders!
There are events taking place at various bars, restaurants and tasting rooms all over Vermont every day/night from Friday, Feb. 26th continuing through Saturday, March 5th. From cider tap takeovers to limited edition tastings, there is something for everybody to enjoy during this exciting week. Since there are quite a few events taking place, we decided to highlight a few for you!
Check out these exciting happenings:
- Join Woodchuck Cider in Middlebury, VT and celebrate VT Cider Week at the Woodchuck Cider House all week long to sample their craft cider and view their tour hall! This event takes place 2/26-3/6.
- This Saturday, 2/27, check out VT's finest ciders at the Skinny Pancake at Stowe Mountain for a tap takeover featuring Woodchuck Cider, Boyden and Eden Cider, and many more!
- On Tuesday, March 4th, head to Doc Ponds in Stowe, VT to take part in VT Cider Week and apres ski in style.
- Stop by the Farmhouse Tap & Grill in Burlington, VT will be hosting a VT Cider tap takeover that you're not going to want to miss on Wednesday, March 2nd! They will have cider on draught all day long from Woodchuck, Citizen, Boyden, Eden and more.
- Lastly,Three Penny Taproom on Saturday, March 5th from 4-7pm to celebrate VT Cider Week.
For a full listing of Vermont Cider Week events, please visit the events page. You can also stay up-to-date on all things cider by visiting the Vermont Cider Week Facebook page.
Which Vermont Cider Week event are you most looking forward to attending? Share your thoughts with us on Facebook.


text:
Buyers have more power than ever before. Research suggests most prospects now complete up to two thirds of their research before contacting a vendor, making it harder than ever for sales to maintain control.
To adapt to this change, we need to meet the buyer where they are. Your sales process needs to be aligned with the way your prospects buy and in a way they will love. It's time for sales to go inbound.
Far too often, sales and marketing teams fail to speak the same language. While sales is focused on hitting a quota, marketing is concerned with clicks. Misalignment results in missed targets and poor results.
To help solve this problem, we offer the following services:
Your sales team wants to sell — not mess around with clunky tools, overly complex workflows, and messy spreadsheets. That's why we work with HubSpot's free CRM, which makes it easy to organize, track, and grow your sales pipeline.
To help you get the most out of this powerful solution, we'll help you:
To sell effectively in today's world, your team needs a combination of the right tools, processes, insights, and content.
To help get you there, we provide:
A podcast positioning statement narrows your target audience, identifies their challenges, and highlights solutions. Follow our 3-step guide to learn more!
Here are five great examples of companies with effective brand voice that you can use for inspiration as you begin crafting your own.
Justifying a podcast for your business may seem challenging, but it doesn't have to be! Check out these tips to achieve a positive ROI for your podcast.
Making the decision to invest in sales enablement services shouldn't be taken lightly. That's why we offer a free review and assessment for anyone who asks. We'll benchmark your performance against industry best practices and highlight some things you can put into action today to start growing your pipeline and begin selling more, faster.


text:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02761499
United Orthopedic Corporation (UOC) is sponsoring a post market study (PMS) to evaluate the clinical performance of the U-Motion II+ Acetabular System and the UTF Reduced Stem, associated surgical instruments, and surgical technique. The devices used in this PMS are cleared to market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and will be used in accordance with the cleared labeling and indications for use.
Despite advances in total hip arthroplasty (THA), postoperative dislocation, bearing wear, and insufficient range of motion are still challenging problems, especially for younger, more active individuals. The U-Motion II+ Acetabular System and UTF Reduced Stem are designed to address these issues by using improved implant materials including a BIOLOX delta ceramic head and a highly cross-linked polyethylene (XPE) liner. With this unique material technology, the U-Motion II+ Acetabular System offers larger femoral head sizes to improve hip flexion and to reduce the risk of joint dislocation. The UTF Reduced Stem offers refined proximal M/L width to maximize metaphyseal fitting, a broach-only technique to minimize bone removal and a reduced distal width to accommodate all types of femoral canal.
The U-Motion II+ Acetabular System and the UTF Reduced Stem used in this study are cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for commercial distribution.
The U-Motion II+ Acetabular System and UTF Reduced Stem are intended for use in subjects who require primary THA for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function.
The study provides for up to 200 patients being enrolled at up to 10 sites. The patients will be evaluated at 10 visits: baseline, procedure/ discharge and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post treatment for primary analysis and annually up to 5 years for secondary long-term follow-up.
Currently, the study is ongoing at five (5) locations throughout the US. To learn more about qualifying as a patient for this study, please contact UOC USA, INC. or a study site located near you (study sites listed below).
We are also currently recruiting additional clinical sites. If you are interested in participating as an investigator surgeon please contact:
Mindy firstname.lastname@example.com
The following locations are the current active clinical study sites for this study:
Hospital for Special SurgeryNew York, NYStudy Coordinator: Rachelle firstname.lastname@example.com
Orthopedic Associates of DaytonDayton, OhioStudy Coordinator: Julie Weller(937)firstname.lastname@example.com
Kenosha OrthopedicsKenosha, Wisconsin Study Coordinator: Elliot email@example.com
Jacksonville Orthopedic InstituteJacksonville, FLStudy Coordinator: Carol firstname.lastname@example.com
University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PAStudy Coordinator: Helena Moses(215) firstname.lastname@example.com
© 2020 United Orthopedics Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service


text:
We understand the specialized markets in which you operate and provide tailored solutions to meet your unique business needs.
Our comprehensive suite of business services combines industry expertise, market knowledge and professional insights.
MNP is a leading national accounting, tax and business consulting firm in Canada.
Suite 2000, 330 5th Ave. S.W.
Calgary, AB
Submit an RFP
MNP careers are Different by Design. As an entrepreneurial firm, we truly believe there are no limits to where your career can go.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, the Honourable Bill Morneau, Minister of Finance, delivered the Liberal government's second Federal Budget, Building a Strong Middle Class.
According to the Minister of Finance, "with its strong focus on innovation, skills, partnerships and fairness, Budget 2017 takes the next steps in securing a more prosperous future for all Canadians."
Please contact your Business Advisor or one of our National Tax Leaders
Regional Tax ContactsJames Kungel - Vancouver Island - 250.734.4303Kevin Wong - Vancouver -604.685.8408Am Lidder - Lower Mainland - 778.571.3535Christopher Tilbury - Fraser Valley - 604.870.6910Brian Posthumus - Okanagan - 250.979.1736Randy Bella - Calgary - 403.536.5536Graham Heron - Central Alberta - 403.356.1255Mark Bernard - Edmonton - 780.453.5388Kim Drever - Peace - 780.832.4287Trevor Tamke - Southern Alberta - 403.502.8467Michael Unick - Lethbridge - 403.317.2770Cindy Heinrichs - Swift Current - 306.770.3627Jeff Henkelman - North Sask - 306.664.8301Carol Hanney - South Sask - 306.790.7930Derek Innis - Winnipeg - 204.788.6093Michael Poole - Southern Manitoba - 204.571.7641Steve Blazino - Northwest Ontario - 807.623.2141Tim Edworthy - Southwest Ontario - 519.772.7498Don Carson - GTA - 416.263.6930Rosario Suppa - GTA-West - 416.641.4948Gavin Miranda - Ottawa - 613.691.4224Sean Sprackett - Montreal - 514.228.7822Jerry Inman - Atlantic Canada - 902.493.5464
Service Line LeadersJohn Durland - International Tax - 416.263.6921Heather Weber - Indirect Tax - 250.979.2575Jay McLean - SR&ED Tax - 519.772.2986
Senior Vice President, TaxLoren Kroeker - National Tax - 250.734.4330
Related Topics:Budget Announcements
Suite 2000, 330 5th Ave. S.W.
Calgary, AB
Find an office near me
View Opportunities


text:
How Poker Helped Barry Greenstein's Golf Game
Playing poker has given Barry the tools to think well under pressure
Phil Ivey, real name Phillip Dennis Ivey Jr. is widely regarded as one of the best poker players to ever grace this earth. His massive personality and phenomenal poker skills have taken him to the top of the poker world throughout the past 20 years. To try your hand at becoming one of the best, we suggest Carbon Poker for USA players. He was born in Riverside, California on Feburary 1st 1976, and started playing poker around his twenties were he got his first nickname "No Home Jerome" come from the ID he used to play at the local casino and later on he got the nickname "Tiger Woods of Poker".
It was from here Ivey started to hone his skills and slowly start to become noticed as a very scary opponent.
"The Corporation" vs Andrew Beal
Perhaps one of the most notable stories surrounding Ivey's poker career is that of his Heads Up battle with billionaire banker Andrew Beal back in 2006. According to several reports around that time, Ivey and Beal played three days of poker against each other, with Ivey coming out on top with a cool $16.6m profit. This whole saga stemmed from an ongoing battle between Beal and several top players for many years before that, in which the players then decided to club together, coin themselves 'The Corporation' and take on Beal. It was also reported that the $16.6m win meant that 'The Corporation' had won back $10m they had lost to Beal previously and added the $6.6m to their bankroll as a whole.
World Series of Poker and World Poker Tour
Phil Ivey have had a glorious poker carrier having won ten World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelets as well as one World Poker Tour (WPT) Final and also appearing nine times at the final table.
Ivey was named Poker Players of the Year by "All In Magazine" in 2005 and 2009
As TheHendonMob reports Phil Ivey has accumulated more than 23 million dollars from tournaments alone, and over $10m in online winnings. A big percentage of this money came from other regular high stakes players such as Patrik Antonius, Viktor Blom, and Tom Dwan.
Official WebsiteIvey League
WikipediaPhil Ivey
World Series Of PokerPhil Ivey
World Poker TourPhil Ivey
Published 6 years agoPhil Ivey vs Patrik Antonius $800k Pot - Ivey League Analysis
Patrik and Phil talk about a huge $800k cash hand played live between the pair.
Published 7 years agoHigh Stakes Rail - Phil 'Polarizing' Ivey 8-game
Video of Thursday's high stakes rail stream from Pokertube, featuring the great one himself, Phil 'Polarizing' Ivey.
Published 7 years agoHow Dwan Plays Two Pair Versus Phil Ivey's Set
Tom "durrrr" Dwan playing two pair against Phil Ivey's set in Poker After Dark.
Published 6 years agoNBC HU 2013 - Phil Laak vs Phil Ivey
NBC HU 2013 - Phil Laak vs Phil Ivey (Ep 01)
Published 3 years agoPoker Superstars - Ivey and Chan's Bluffing War!
In this hand from the Poker Superstars Invitational Championship, Phil Ivey and Johnny Chan get into a bluffing war! Who will hold...
Published 5 years agoPhil Ivey Explaining Why He Mucked the Winning Hand
Phil Ivey explains the notorious hand in which he mucks the winner.
Published 5 years agoSharks Balling Out of Control
Phil Ivey, 'durrrr', Patrik Antonius and Daniel Negreanu in some crazy action
Published 5 years agoPhil on Phil Action - Ivey Valuetowns Hellmuth to Oblivion
Phil Hellmuth pays off three streets with super weak hand against Phil Ivey
Published 6 years agoPhil Ivey - Greatest Poker Player of All Time
Phil Ivey won his 9th Bracelet in the mixed event at the WSOP Asia-Pacific. What makes him so brilliant?
Published 12 years agoPhil Ivey's 8th final table
Kimberly Lansing of worldpokertour.coms Live Updates talks to Phil Ivey as he heads into his record setting 8th WPT Final Table......
Playing poker has given Barry the tools to think well under pressure
Here, in Part 3, we will look at how Jivaro plan to combine the future of poker and HUD's….
Do the MTT specialists match up to their better-known rivals?
Is it still as easy for an amateur player to make it all the way in the ultimate competition?
Ming Zhang, a baccarat dealer from Alexandria, Virginia, now faces up to five years in prison
The incredibly exciting Short Deck poker is coming to America's Cardroom next week
A moment of ego cost Smith dearly in the toy fighting while under the influence…
Here we go again… Last week Prahlad Friedman upset a bunch of people by tweeting about race.
Non-players need the credit they deserve
WSOP floor personnel got themselves under fire for announcing a 20-minute break in Day 2 of the Big One For One Drop


text:
Most of you will already know that Henry went into a physical and mental decline following a riding accident in the January of 1536. Henry was unconsciousness for two hours and his courtiers thought him dead. It was all downhill for the king after that, ulcerated legs, weight gain and an increased tendency to be irritable and quick to temper.
There more about Henry in Tracy Boreman's article in this month's History Extra entitled Five things you (probably) didn't know about Henry VIII.


text:
In 2015, the Council started to develop a new website for Flamstead.
We knew that we would need great photos of the village and the many activities and events that take place here every year.
The Council invited residents to enter a photo competition with their 5 best photos and more than 80 people did so.
Rachel Piper, a professional photographer who was highly commended as British Wildlife Photographer of the Year (2012), in addition to many other accolades, kindly agreed to judge the Flamstead Five Competition.
Rachel has a website dedicated to those battling mental illness, where you can see and buy her beautiful work, including many images of nature and local places such as the Ashridge Estate. (http://www.rachelpiper.me.uk/about/).


text:
Bloomington Living Hope Lutheran Church is proud to partner with Ruby's Pantry. Ruby's Pantry is a non-profit organization that receives donations of food from local retailers and distributes them to frugal families throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. For more information about Ruby's Pantry, visit their website.
How does this work?
On the first Tuesday of each month Bloomington Lutheran Church will serve as a distribution site to provide food to help families stretch their food budgets. Registration starts at 4:30 pm and distribution of food will run from 5:00-6:30 pm. Guests are asked to make a $20 donation to cover the costs of transportation and in return, they will receive a share of the food distribution. Anyone who eats is welcome to participate, there are no residency or income limits or restrictions.
Our location now offers pre-registration for convenience and to help you avoid waiting the day of the pantry. For a $1 processing fee, you can use your credit or debit card to reserve your time slot and food share for the upcoming pantry. Simply follow the steps below:
What do I need to bring with to the distribution?
Are you interested in Volunteering?
We are in need of many volunteers to help before, during and after each distribution. There is a role for everyone regardless of age (children under 12 must serve one on one with the adult who brings them) or ability. If you are interested in volunteering, you MUST complete the volunteer application BEFORE you sign up and someone will be in contact with you soon. Any child volunteering also needs to fill out a separate application. Please select the Bloomington location when you complete this form. Thank you! We look forward to serving with you!
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
Map and Directions
Saturday Evening Worship: 6:00 PM
Sunday Morning Worship: 10:00 AM
Bible Class and Sunday School: Sunday: 9:00 AM
Monday Worship: 7:00 PM
Sunday Morning Worship: 8:00 AM & 10:00 AM
Bible Class and Sunday School: Sunday 9:00 AM
Follow Us


text:
© 1998 - City of Topeka All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized
duplication or copying is prohibited.
1.1 Introduction and Overview
(a) Definitions and The Need for Confessions1.2 The "Voluntariness" Test
(b) The Basic Law
(c) The Extent of Police Abuse
(d) The Supreme Court's Response
(a) The Common Law Rule1.3 Miranda: When Interrogation is "Custodial"
(b) Due Process and the "Complex of Values"
(c) Relevant Factors in the "Totality of Circumstances"
(a) "Custody" vs. "Focus"1.4 Miranda: "Interrogation"
(b) Purpose of Custody
(c) Subjective vs. Objective Approach
(d) Presence at Station
(e) Presence Elsewhere
(f) Other Considerations
(a) The "Functional Equivalent" Test1.5 Miranda: Required Warnings
(b) Questioning
(c) Other "Words or Actions"
(d) "Volunteered" Statements and Follow-Up Questioning
(a) Content1.6 Miranda: Waiver of Rights
(b) Time and Frequency
(c) Manner; Proof
(d) Additional Admonitions
(a) Express or Implied1.7 Miranda: Nature of Offense, Interrogator, and Proceedings
(b) Competence of the Defendant
(c) Conduct of the Police
(d) Conduct of the Defendant: Implied Waiver
(e) Conduct of the Defendant: Implied Assertion of Rights
(f) Conduct of the Defendant: "Qualified" or Limited Waiver
(g) Waiver After Assertion of Rights
(a) Questioning About Minor Offense2. The Right to Counsel
(b) Questioning by Private Citizen
(c) Questioning by Non-police Official
(d) Other Special Concerns
(e) Proceedings at Which Confession Offered
(a) When the Right to Counsel Begins1.1 Introduction and Overview
(b) Waiver of Counsel
(c) Infringement of the Right
(a) Definitions and The Need for Confessions
Confession. A voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, communicated to another person, wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offense charged, and discloses the circumstances of the act and the share and participation which he had in it."
Black's Law Dictionary, 269 (5th Ed. 1979).
"Custody. The care and control of a thing or person . . . . Also the detainer of a man's person by virtue of lawful process or authority.
The term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession."
Black's Law Dictionary, 347 (5th Ed. 1979).
"Custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation requiring that defendant be advised of his constitutional rights, means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way; custody can occur without formality of arrest and in areas other than police station. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232. See Miranda Rule."
Black's Law Dictionary, 347 (5th Ed. 1979).
"Interrogation. In criminal law, process of questions propounded by police to person arrested or suspected to seek solution of crime. Such person is entitled to be informed of his rights, including right to have counsel present, and the consequences of his answers. If the police fail or neglect to give these warnings, the questions and answers are not admissible in evidence a the trial or hearing of the arrested person. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. See also Confession; Custodial Interrogation; Miranda Rule."
Black's Law Dictionary, 734 (5th Ed. 1979).
"Miranda Rule. Prior to any custodial interrogation (that is, questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way) the person must be warned: 1. That he has a right to remain silent; 2. That any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him; 3. That he has a right to the presence of an attorney; 4. That if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Unless and until these warnings or a waiver of these rights are demonstrated at the trial, no evidence obtained in the interrogation may be used against the accused. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 478, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.
Black's Law Dictionary, 900 (5th Ed. 1979).
(1) Confessions and incriminating statements are often the most critical evidence available to prove a defendant's guilt. Critical cases may be won by the prosecution on the strength of a confession alone; they may be lost, however, if police unlawfully obtain a statement. Today's officers must be familiar with the legal aspects of interviews and interrogations.
(b) The Basic Law
(1) The Fifth and Sixth Amendments
The United States Constitution establishes the legal foundation controlling police interrogation. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the suspect's right against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment expressly guarantees his right to counsel in a criminal proceeding.
(A) Fifth Amendment - The Right to Remain Silent
The Fifth Amendment states, in part, that no "person [shall] be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself...." This clause means what it says--the police and courts cannot force a suspect to say anything that may incriminate him. The Supreme Court interprets the Amendment as requiring police to advise suspects of their right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and other critical rights, before engaging in "custodial interrogation." The famous, and often misunderstood Miranda case is based on this Amendment.
(B) Sixth .Amendment-The Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the criminal defendant's right to "Assistance Of Counsel for his defence." This right to counsel is triggered when adversarial judicial proceedings have commenced--in Kansas, when the complaint is filed.
Under either Amendment, police may not interrogate a suspect after she asserts her "counsel right" unless she initiates a subsequent interview, or her counsel is present
(C) Failure to comply with Miranda rules leads to an obvious result: the suspect's confession, and any evidence which is a product of that confession, is inadmissible at trial. Many times, application of the exclusionary rule results in the suspect going free, a result judges do not like but which is necessary to prevent the erosion of Constitutional rights.
I write this concurring opinion to express my concern with a growing failure of law enforcement officers to understand and apply the Miranda rule and rules relating to search and seizure and to arrest.State v. Vermillion, Unpublished Opinion (Kansas Court of Appeals No. 79,337 2/20/98), Lewis, J., concurring.
I realize that police work is arduous and hazardous. I have the highest respect for those who risk their lives in that endeavor. However, I consider it inexcusable that a prosecution is lost because the police failed to consider and apply Miranda, the rules relating to arrest, and/or Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
There may be some instances in which a failure to comply with those rules is understandable. This is not such a case. This case is lost because the police did not comply with the Miranda rules. These rules are rather simple and have been in effect for more than 30 years. They should not be overlooked.
It is possible that more educational seminars need to be held for law enforcement officers. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are not going to go away, and neither is Miranda.
I hope my opinion is taken as constructive criticism. I am no more anxious than the police to short circuit the criminal process by suppressing evidence needed to convict. The suppression in this case and others can be avoided by conscientious attention to the rules I have discussed. These are rules that originated in the United States Supreme Court and have been adopted in Kansas by our Supreme Court. They are not complicated or difficult to follow. I implore law enforcement officers all across the state to double their efforts to apply the law to each arrest. If this is done, the guilt or innocence of each defendant will be decided on all of the evidence. Police work which fails to take the constitutional rights of each defendant into account simply opens the door for the defendant to walk free.
(D) Kansas Law
Section 10 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution guarantees that "In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person, or by counsel....No person shall be a witness against himself."
K.S.A. 60-425, part of the Kansas Rules of Evidence, states, in part, that generally
[E]very natural person has a privilege, which he or she may claim, to refuse to disclose in an action or to a public official of this state or the United States or any other state or any governmental agency or division thereof any matter that will incriminate such person.
(2) The Fifth Amendment and Miranda
The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right against self-incrimination-the right to remain silent in the face of police questioning. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) the Supreme Court held that police must advise suspects of their rights before "custodial interrogation." If the suspect waive those rights, questioning may proceed; if they invoke those rights, questioning must cease, and may resume only under limited circumstances.
Miranda targets coercive police tactics, especially those that occur in the stationhouse environment, and protects suspects by requiring police to advise them of their constitutional rights.
(c) The Extent of Police Abuse
Police interrogation "still takes place in privacy" which "results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
This secrecy leads to ever-present conflicting accounts of what takes place in interrogations rooms. In Miranda, the prosecution conceded that modern interrogation techniques focus on applying psychological pressure to obtain confessions rather than physical blows. Because of the court's lack of knowledge of what really happened, and outlandish or shocking tactics by police interrogators, the Supreme Court formulated prophylactic rules designed to ensure confessions were knowing and voluntary.
(d) The Supreme Court's Response
Any person "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way" cannot be questioned unless he waived his rights after being advised (1) "that he has a right to remain silent"; (2) "that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court"; (3) "that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation"; and (4) "that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him." Miranda, 384 U.S. at ___.
1.2 The "Voluntariness" Test
(a) The Common Law Rule
Historically, all confessions were admissible at trial, the thought being that a suspect will not confess unless he is truly guilty. Thus, even confessions resulting from torture were admissible. This practice begin to change prior to the middle of the 18th century when English judges began requiring proof that statements were made "voluntarily" and without improper inducements.
(b) Due Process and the "Complex of Values"
In 1936, the Supreme Court first barred a confession from being used in state courts. The suspects confessed after brutal beatings. The Supreme Court held the statements were not voluntary and their use at trial violated the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). Subsequent cases focused on three main values: 1. The reliability of the statement; 2. The methods used to extract the statements; and 3. Whether the suspect's free choice was significantly impaired even if police tactics were not offense.
(c) Relevant Factors in the "Totality of Circumstances"
1. Whipping of
slapping the suspect
2. Depriving suspect of food, water or sleep
3. Keeping suspect naked or in a small cell
4. Holding a gun to suspect's head or threatening him with mob violence
5. Lengthy and uninterrupted interrogation, especially if suspect is held incommunicado
6. Confinement for extended period of time while only sporadically interrogated
7. Distractive or disorienting techniques such as moving suspect from place or interrogation by different questioners
8. Keeping suspect isolated (solitary confinement)
1.3 Miranda: When Interrogation is "Custodial"
Again, Miranda does not require officers to give the warnings whenever they plan to interview a suspect:. Warnings are required only before custodial interrogation. Simply put, you must Mirandize only when the suspect is in custody and he is going to be interviewed about a crime. When a suspect is under arrest, she is clearly in custody and must be Mirandized before questioning. A suspect may also be in custody, for Miranda purposes, without a formal arrest.
(a) What is custody?
The Miranda court equated custody with being "deprived of...freedom in any significant way." Subsequent decisions characterize custody as formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977); California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983). The custody question turns on a case by-case basis. State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 590, 597, 802 P.2d 558 (1990).
(a) "Custody" vs. "Focus"
Contrary to what some detectives around here may tell you, police do not need to Mirandize a suspect simply because she is the "focus" of an investigation. Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976); Stansbury v.. California, 114 S. Ct. 1526 (1994); Fritschen, 247 Kan. at ___. However, focus becomes a factor, not in itself determinative, in the custody determination, when the fact that the suspect is the focus is communicated to the suspect. Also, an officers subjective beliefs about the nature of an interrogation generally have no bearing on the determination of whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes.
So, the fact that an investigation has focused on the interviewee does not mean that Miranda warnings are required; but if an officer communicates that fact to the interviewee, it may become a factor in the custody element of the Miranda "equation."
(b) Subjective vs. Objective Approach
Whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes is determined from the point of view of the "reasonable man in the suspect's position..." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984); State v. William, 248 Kan. 389 (1991). The focus is on whether a reasonable person, standing "in the shoes of" the defendant, would think she was free to leave. Your subjective thoughts, and the suspect's subjective thoughts, are irrelevant. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The circumstances surrounding the interrogation are determinative. Fritschen, 247 Kan. at 597, 603.
(1) Factors Weighed in Determining Whether the Suspect was in Custody
(A) When the interrogation occurredFritschen, 247 Kan. at 603.
(B) Where the interrogation occurred
(C) How long interrogation lasted
(D) Who was present
(E) What the police officers said or did
(F) What the Defendant said or did
(G) The existence of actual physical restraint
(H) How the defendant was questioned, i.e., as a witness or suspect
(I) How the defendant got to the place where the questioning occurred
(J) What happened after the interrogation.
(d) Presence at Station
(1) It is more likely that custody exists in cases of stationhouse questioning. After all, Miranda targeted coercive station house interrogation. However, stationhouse interviews do not always require a custody finding: again, the key is restraint of freedom. If police tell a suspect he is not under arrest, that he may leave any time, and then allow him to leave when a confession-producing interview ends, he was not in custody. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at ___. Even arrest following a confession doesn't mean the suspect was in custody during the interview, and the confession will, in proper circumstances, survive a lack of warnings. Fritschen, 247 Kan. at 603.
(2) State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 936 P.2d 1364 (Kan. 1997). Murder suspect made incriminating statements during 3 1/2 hour interview in interview room at police station. In holding that the suspect was not in custody for the first hour of the interview, the court noted two LEOs were present but each left the room at various times for various reasons; the conversation was cordial and friendly; LEOs asked suspect whether he had any plans for rest of evening, thus indicating interview could be rescheduled if necessary; LEOs told suspect they were attempting to clear him as a suspect and would "cut him loose" later; LEOs thanked suspect for coming in voluntarily; LEOs provided suspect a beverage upon suspect's request; LEOs asked suspect if he wanted some cake; suspect was not restrained in any way; there were no guards at the door; suspect came to police station in his own car upon request of LEOs; one of the LEOs asked for suspect's drivers license and although he did not return it he placed it on the table between them and when suspect asked for it, the LEO handed it to him. Suspect was arrested for murder at conclusion of the interview.
(e) Presence Elsewhere
Other locales may or may not weigh heavily in the custody determination. Obviously, if the opportunity for coercion in that locale is lessened, the likelihood that custody does not exist increases.
(1) Home interviews
Warnings are required when an interview takes place in the suspect's home if his freedom of movement is restricted or he is formally arrested. Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (1969). If there is no formal arrest, and the suspect is free to leave, Miranda is not required. Beckwith, 425 U.S. at ___.
On the scene questioning at a shooting which later moved to the defendant's bedroom due to normal crime scene chaos was held to be non-custodial in State v. Gooden, 22 Kan. App.2d 271, 915 P.2d 169, rev. denied 260 Kan. 998 (1996). In Gooden, the defendant told several different accounts of what took place. Gooden agreed to talk in his bedroom. Once, Gooden asked to go outside and the officer said there were too many people outside and it was too cold. At one point, Gooden reached into a closet, prompting the officer to draw his weapon and tell Gooden to sit down. Gooden later agreed to go to the police station for questioning, and at one point asked to go home. Officers responded they had no problem with that, but wanted him to stay. When officers learned Gooden was the shooter, they immediately Mirandized him.
(2) Police cars
Questioning in a police car may strongly suggest custody, but if other factors, or their absence, indicate that a suspect is free to leave, custody does not exist. The Supreme Court refused to review a state court case so holding, Colorado v. Probasco, 795 P.2d 1330, cert. denied, 111 S. Ct 558 (1990).
(3) Traffic stops
Routine traffic stops do not rise to the level of "custody" for Miranda purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court characterizes such stops as generally "non-threatening" temporary detentions, akin to generic Terry v. Ohio stops. Berkemer, 468 U.S. at ___; Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 109 S. Ct. 205 (1988). Of course, once an arrest is made on a traffic stop, Miranda is required before interrogation may occur.
(4) Crime scenes -"on the Scene" questioning
General on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime, or similar general questioning of citizens during the initial "fact-finding" process, do not constitute custody. Miranda is not required in such situations. State v. Bohanan, 220 Kan. 121 (1976); State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596 (1973); State v. Phippen, 207 Kan. 224 (1971); State v. Almond, 15 Kan. App.2d 585 (1991).
(f) Other Considerations
(1) Coercive atmosphere
Although no formal arrest occurs, it may be reasonable to find a "restraint of freedom" necessitating Miranda warnings if police create a clearly coercive atmosphere. So, strong shows of authority such as display of weapons, an unusual number of officers, and an officer's conversational tone may call for Miranda.
(2) Defendant Handcuffed
Application of handcuffs does not necessarily mean the suspect is in custody from that point in time through the rest of the police contact. However, handcuffs strongly suggest the suspect is no longer free to go. Therefore, if you apply handcuffs while conducting a Terry frisk (which you should always do to protect your safety), then remove them and attempt to interrogate the suspect without Mirandizing them, it would be a good idea to tell the suspect they are free to go.
1.4 Miranda: "Interrogation"
Miranda warnings are required only when the suspect is interrogated (and, of course, in custody). For Miranda purposes, "interrogation" means direct questioning intended to produce incriminating statements, or the functional equivalent of direct questioning.
(a) The "Functional Equivalent" Test
Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part oi the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
Whether conduct constitutes the functional equivalent of direct questioning depends on the facts of each case; this determination involves examining officers' knowledge of a suspect and any susceptibility he has to the police conduct. The conduct must be that which police know, or should know, is "reasonably likely" to evoke an incriminating response.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977); Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980);. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (1987).
(b) Questioning
(1) Express/Direct questioning
Police clearly engage in interrogation when they question a criminal suspect about his criminal activity. If questioning is coupled with custody, Miranda is required.
(2) Exception to Interrogation -"On-The Scene" investigative Inquiries
Police may, without implicating Miranda, ask "on-the-scene" questions limited to the purpose of identifying persons found in the vicinity of a recent crime. For example, when officers respond to a domestic situation and a bloody, battered person walks out of her house to greet police, they may ask "What happened here?" The persons's statement, "he came home drunk and hit me, so I shot him," can be introduced in her murder trial.
(3) Exception to Interrogation - The Public Safety exception
When legitimate public safety concerns outweigh Fifth Amendment concerns, police may forego Miranda and ask certain narrow questions despite the fact that such inquiries may be characterized as "direct questioning." For example, police need not Mirandize a suspect after a frisk in a public place yields an empty shoulder holster--instead, officers may immediately ask, "Where's the gun?"
New York v. Quarles, 104 S.Ct. 2626 (1984); State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1 (1990).
(3) Exception to Interrogation - Routine Booking Questions
Miranda is not required before officers ask routine booking questions. Questions concerning an arrestee's address, his family history, and other similar data are not "testimonial" in nature and, accordingly, are not considered incriminating.
But, not all questions asked during the booking process are non-testimonial. For example, inquiries during DUI bookings such as "have you had anything to drink tonight?" require Miranda if they seek incriminating responses. Note: This same question, if asked on the scene at a car stop, is allowable without Miranda warnings.
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 110 L.Ed. 2d 528 (1990).
(c) Other "Words or Actions"
(1) Applying psychological pressure - "The Christian Burial Speech"
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). In this case, suspect was arrested, arraigned, and committed to jail in Davenport, Iowa, for abducting a 10-year-old girl in Des Moines, Iowa. His attorney told him not to make any statements until he consulted with another lawyer upon being returned to Des Moines. The LEOs who drove suspect from Davenport to Des Moines agreed not to question suspect during the trip. While en route to Des Moines, suspect said he didn't want to talk unless his lawyer was there, but stated several times that he would tell the whole story after seeing his Des Moines lawyer. One of the LEOs knew suspect was a former mental patient and was deeply religious. LEO stated to suspect he felt they should stop and locate the girl's body because her parents were entitled to a Christian burial for the girl, who was taken away from them on Christmas Eve. Suspect eventually made several incriminating statements in the course of the trip, and finally directed the police to the girl's body. Here the police officer's 'Christian burial speech' was tantamount to interrogation and suspect was entitled to the assistance of counsel at the time he made the incriminating statements.
Although the confession was suppressed, officers were able to prove they would have inevitably discovered the body, so the body and evidence resulting therefrom was ruled admissible in evidence. Police showed that 200 searchers were approaching the vicinity of the victim's body at the time Williams decided to cooperate. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).
(d) "Volunteered" Statements and Follow-Up Questioning
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). Suspect walked up to a uniformed Denver police officer on the street and announced that he wished to confess he had murdered someone. The puzzled officer immediately gave him Miranda warnings. Suspect says he understands his rights, but still wants to confess to murder. The still-bewildered officer then asked the defendant several questions about whether he had been drinking or taking drugs. Suspect denied any drinking or drug use, but admits he is a former mental patient and wanted to talk because "his conscience had been bothering him." After more contact with uniformed officer and detectives, all of which told suspect he did not have to say anything, suspect confesses. He later attempts to have statements suppressed alleging he was "under compulsion from the voice of God." The Supreme Court was not impressed with this argument. In holding the statements admissible, the court stated:
Respondent would now have us require sweeping inquiries into the state of mind of a criminal defendant who has confessed, inquiries quite divorced from any coercion brought to bear on the defendant by the State. We think the Constitution rightly leaves this sort of inquiry to be resolved by state laws governing the admission of evidence and erects no standard of its own in this area. A statement rendered by one in the condition of respondent might be proved to be quite unreliable, but this is a matter to be governed by the evidentiary laws of the forum, . . and not by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 'The aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, whether true or false.' [Citation omitted].Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166-67.
We hold that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We also conclude that the taking of respondent's statements, and their admission into evidence, constitute no violation of that Clause.
1.5 Miranda: Required Warnings
(a) Content
Miranda tells us to advise suspects of certain rights before custodial interrogation begins. Agencies commonly provide "Miranda Cards" to officers that contain recitations of these rights. Always use these cards-never Mirandize by memory.
Miranda requires officers to advise a suspect:
(1) That he has the right to remain silent;Miranda cards usually contain an admonition that the suspect may choose at any time not to answer questions or make statements. While Miranda recognizes this right, it does not require its inclusion in the warnings. However, it is recommended that this admonition be read to the suspect.
(2) That anything he says can be used against him in court;
(3) That he has the right to the presence of an attorney before and during questioning; and,
(4) That should he be unable to afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him before any questioning.
(5) Wording the Warnings
The warning must convey the essence of the suspect's rights-while it isn't necessary to repeat the Court's exact words, their substance must be conveyed. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). The key is to make the suspect understand what rights she has.
(6) Straying from the Typical Warning
Courts have allowed some minor deviation from the traditional warnings. In California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 101 S. Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the admonition that the defendant had "the right to talk to a lawyer before you are questioned, have him present with you while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning," and "the right to have a lawyer to represent you at no cost to yourself," satisfied Miranda even though the officers neglected to tell him that he had the right to have counsel appointed prior to questioning. More recently, the Court held that telling a suspect that there was "no way of giving" him a lawyer, but that one would be "appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court," was not so far astray from traditional Mirandizing as to render the admonition defective. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S. Ct. 287, 106 L.Ed.2d 166, (1989).
(7) BE ACCURATE! Defective admonitions make defective cases. READ THE SUSPECT'S RIGHTS FROM THE CARD.
(b) Time and Frequency
Generally, warnings do not become "stale" after a few hours interrogation and officers are not required to give the suspect "fresh" warnings. However, whether officers did so will be a factor which is considered in determining whether there is a knowing, voluntary waiver of rights.
Don't assume that another officer gave the warnings and did it correctly. If you believe the suspect will confess, you have nothing to lose by ensuring the suspect was Mirandized and voluntary waived his rights.
(c) Manner; Proof
Usually the only persons in the interrogation room are the officer(s) and the suspect. The stories of what occurred in that room are often wildly divergent. Because of the lack of outside observers, objective evidence is preferred to prove the suspect was advised of her rights. Written right admonitions are good. Even better are videotaped interviews which clearly depict the LEO scrupulously following their Miranda cards and/or a written admonition document.
(d) Additional Admonitions
(1) LEOs have no duty to tell suspects that invocation of their right to remain silent cannot be used against them at trial.
(2) LEOs have no duty to advise suspects about the crime for which they wish to interrogate the suspect. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.ED.2d 954 (1987).
1.6 Miranda: Waiver of Rights
Again, police may question suspects in custodial interrogation situations only when they Mirandize them and the suspect waives their Miranda rights. Waivers must be knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The prosecution must prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that any confession was knowing and voluntary.
Whether a suspect has "knowingly and intelligently" waived her Miranda rights depends on several factors. Relevant factors include the duration and manner of the interrogation; the ability of the accused on request to communicate with the outside world; the accused's age, intellect, and background; and the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation. The essential inquiry in determining the voluntariness of a statement is whether the statement was the product of the free and independent will of the accused. State v. Hickles, 261 Kan. 74, 79-80, 929 P.2d 141 (1996). Courts also consider a suspect's mental capacity, State v. William, 248 Kan. 389, 807 P. 2d 1292 (1991). The Kansas Supreme Court has stated that a knowing and intelligent waiver may be established by showing that a suspect understood his right to a lawyer and understood he had the right not to talk. State v. Perkins, 248 Kan. 760, 811 P.2d 1142 (1991).
Remember that a confession preceded by Miranda warnings and a waiver may still be inadmissible as involuntary. A confession must be shown, in the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, to be voluntary. State v. Wacker, 253 Kan. 664, 861 P.2d 1262 (1993), and William, 248 Kan. 389 (1991).
(a) Express or Implied
(1) Express waivers require no explanation. After advising a suspect of their rights, the suspect affirmatively states they are willing to talk, and they do talk. Another example is a written waiver form.
(A) Written Waivers
Many officers verbally advise suspects of their rights, and then request the suspect to read a written form containing the same information. If at that point the suspect is willing to waive and answer questions, she can sign the form acknowledging that she has been advised of her rights; understands them, and is willing to waive and answer questions.
Written waivers are valuable evidence that police complied with Miranda. Prosecutors and judges like written waivers; because they complicate challenges to confessions, defense attorneys therefore dislike them.
Occasionally suspects verbally waive their rights, agree to answer questions, read the written waiver and again agree to answer questions, but refuse to sign a written waiver form. Refusal will not necessarily invalidate the waiver. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).
(2) Implied waivers can be inferred from the circumstances. Without affirmatively stating they wish to talk, a suspect can give an implied waiver by answering questions propounded to them. However, mere silence is insufficient proof of waiver.
(A) North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). Suspect had 11th grade education and was literate. FBI agents gave him their "Advice of Rights" form which suspect read and said he understood, but refused to sign. Suspect was advised he did not have to speak or sign the form, but agents still wanted to talk to him. Suspect said "I will talk to you but I am not signing any form." He then made inculpatory statements. One agent stated that suspect said nothing when advised of his right to the assistance of a lawyer, and at no time did the suspect request counsel or attempt to terminate the agents' questioning. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial finding confession was inadmissible because suspect had refused to waive in writing his right to have counsel present and that there had not been a specific oral waiver. Supreme Court reversed, holding that while silence along does not constitute waiver, wavier can be implied depending on the factual circumstances of the case.
(B) State v. Hickles, 261 Kan. 74, 929 P.2d 141 (1996). Murder suspect taken into custody while walking along a country road. During transport in a deputy's patrol car he was advised of his Miranda rights. After arrival suspect was placed in a detective's office with 3 LEOs present. LEOs asked if he recalled being advised of his rights and if he recalled them. Suspect responded that he understood and had no questions as to the Miranda rights. LEO told the defendant he wanted to hear suspect's side of the story and asked him three or four questions about crime. Suspect stated, "I don't have anything to say." About 5-7 minutes into the interview, suspect asked whether LEOs had open minds and whether it would benefit him to tell his side of the story. LEOs stated they did. Suspect asked several more questions, then asked "Is this when I get an attorney?" LEO thought the question ambiguous, and asked "Are you asking for an attorney?" Suspect failed to respond. LEO repeated questions, and suspect advised he was not requesting an attorney. Suspect then made incriminating statements. LEO asked follow-up questions. Entire interview lasted from 15 to 30 minutes. Court held that suspect impliedly waived his right to remain silent or request an attorney. 261 Kan. at 82-83.
(b) Competence of the Defendant
In order for confession to be knowing and voluntary, defendant must have the capacity to know and understand her rights, and voluntarily waive them. Inebriation or mental illness can make the suspect incompetent to make a knowing and voluntary waiver.
(1) State v. Wacker, 253 Kan. 664, 861 P.2d 1272, (1993). Suspect accused of raping and killing a nine-year old girl made inculpatory confessions during several interviews. Suspect claimed waiver was involuntary in view of his diminished educational, emotional, and mental capacities; through compulsion during secret extended periods of questioning; and by fear through the interrogators' use of threats. Suspect had an I.Q. of 72, although he seemed to function well in society. After reviewing all the evidence, including expert testimony from two psychiatrists and the testimony of the LEOs, court upholds waiver as knowing and voluntary.
(2) State v. Perkins, 248 Kan. 760, 811 P.2d 1142 (1991). Murder, robbery and rape suspect made incriminating statements during interview after being advised of his rights. Suspect had an I.Q. of 67 and was described as "mildly retarded." Suspect could not read or write. LEOs read each statement on waiver form to suspect and asked him if he understood them. Suspect stated "yes" and agreed to talk. LEOs showed suspect how to mark form and sign it. Suspect told LEOs he had a split personality and his other personality "The Drifter" did the crime. Suspect said victim was dead when he had intercourse with her, and that he learned to have sex with dead bodies while working for undertakers in Pennsylvania. Suspect also told officers he had spent time in mental institutions. Court holds waiver was knowing and voluntary under all the circumstances. "Understanding that one has the right to a lawyer or to not talk is enough to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights. To require more would void most waivers. " 248 Kan. at 766.
(3) Children
(A) Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 107 (1979). Totality of the circumstances approach can be used in determining whether juveniles knowingly and voluntarily waive their rights.
(B) State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 552 P.2d 905 (1976). Kansas courts have long followed the totality of the circumstances test as a applied to juveniles, but used the "greatest care" in assessing the validity of the confession and considered the age of the minor; the length of the questioning; the youth's education; the youth's prior experience with police and the youth's mental state. This totality of the circumstances test meant that youth had no constitutional right to speak to their parents prior to police interrogation. State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 940 P.2d 42 (1997).
(C) In The Matter of B.M.B., ___ Kan. ___ (No. 79,358 03/13/98). "A juvenile under 14 years of age must be given an opportunity to consult with his or her parent, guardian or attorney as to whether he or she will waive his or her rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Both the parent and juvenile shall be advised of the juvenile's right to an attorney and to remain silent. Absent such warning and consultation, a statement of confession cannot be used against the juvenile at a subsequent hearing or trial."
(c) Conduct of the Police
Because Miranda was designed to protect against coercive police practices, actions of the interrogating officers always weigh heavily into the equation when a court determines whether any particular waiver was knowing and voluntary. Interrogators would do well to make suspects as comfortable as possible and put suspects at ease to the extent possible.
(1) Perkins, 248 Kan. 760. Court points out at great length the fairness of the officers conducting the interviews, noting there were no promises, threats, or coercion and that all officers went to great lengths to inform Perkins of his rights. Court also noted that when suspect became reluctant to talk, interrogator became "overly friendly" at times and made emotional appeals to the defendant to "face these things." Court held that emotional appeals do not amount to police authority -- they were simply an attempt to calm an upset individual.
(2) State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 936 P.2d 1364 (Kan. 1997). Murder suspect made incriminating statements during 3 1/2 hour interview in interview room at police station. In holding that the suspect was not in custody for the first hour of the interview and the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights during the remaining 2 1/2 hours, the court noted the following factors: two LEOs were present but each left the room at various times for various reasons; the conversation was cordial and friendly; LEOs asked suspect whether he had any plans for rest of evening, thus indicating interview could be rescheduled if necessary; LEOs told suspect they were attempting to clear him as a suspect and would "cut him loose" later; LEOs thanked suspect for coming in voluntarily; LEOs provided suspect a beverage upon suspect's request; LEOs asked suspect if he wanted some cake; suspect was not restrained in any way; there were no guards at the door; suspect came to police station in his own car upon request of LEOs; one of the LEOs asked for suspect's drivers license and although he did not return it he placed it on the table between them and when suspect asked for it, the LEO handed it to him; and LEOs encouraged suspect to tell the truth because he would be better off. Although court stated, "The officers were not required to have the defendant's best interests at heart or even be nice to him during the questioning," the fact they were nice helped establish lack of custody during initial questioning and voluntary waiver after LEOs gave Miranda warnings.
(3) Promises made to suspects.
Direct promises to a suspect are inherently risky and may result in exclusion of the confession. K.S.A. 60-460(f) allows for exclusion of a confession if it was induced by threats or promises concerning action to be taken by a public official with reference to the crime, likely to cause the accused to make such a statement falsely, and made by a person whom the accused reasonably believed to have the power or authority to execute the same."
Promises of benefits may backfire--courts may find that a promise was so appealing that it improperly motivated a confession, or that a promise of a benefit to be derived from cooperation rendered the confession involuntary.
(A) State v. Tillery, 227 Kan. 340, 606 P.2d 1031 (1980). Kidnaping and indecent liberties suspect told LEO he was trying to aid the victim. LEO told suspect he didn't believe him and "it would be better if he told the truth." Court held LEOs' statement did not render confession involuntary, nor was it likely to induce a false confession. The court stated:
"In considering the effect of a promise made by the police to an accused during an interrogation various factors have been recognized as worthy of consideration in determining the voluntariness of a subsequent confession. To render such a confession involuntary it is generally held that the promise must concern action to be taken by a public official, that the promised action must be such as would likely cause the accused to make a false statement to obtain the benefits of the promise and the promise must be made by a person whom the accused reasonably believed to have the power or authority to execute the same." [Citations omitted]. 227 Kan. at 344.(B) State v. Baston, 261 Kan. 100, 928 P.2d 79 (1996). Aggravated kidnaping, aggravated robbery and aggravated battery suspect claimed interrogating LEO promised to get kidnaping charge and aggravated charges dropped if suspect cooperated and told him about an unrelated crime (allegations the LEO denied). Court held there was substantial evidence to support district court's ruling that promises were made and rendered confession involuntary. Court noted that LEOs chose to videotape only portions of interview and those taped portions clearly indicated suspect's belief he would be rewarded for his cooperation. Court also pointed out the suspect was 27 years old but had only a 9th grade education and suspect agreed to confess when he was upset about being separated from his girlfriend and unborn child with a possible jail sentence.
(C) A promise to speak with the district attorney, by itself, is insufficient evidence to invalidate a confession. State v. Harwick, 220 Kan. 572, 575-76, 552 P.2d 987 (1976). However, as in Baston, what was said just before the confession often gets twisted and the inherent coerciveness of police interrogation causes courts to cautiously review such statements.
(D) State v. Waugh, 238 Kan. 537, 543, 712 P.2d 1243 (1986). Promise to allow an accused to see his wife may not be sufficient inducement if the visit is not conditioned on a confession.
(d) Conduct of the Defendant: Implied Waiver
As noted above in Butler, a suspect does not have to utter magic words to waive their rights. They can do so by talking to police after being advised they do not have to, or by initiating conversations with police without being asked to.
(e) Conduct of the Defendant: Implied Assertion of Rights
Once a suspect invokes his right to counsel,, police must immediately cease questioning. Questioning may not resume unless and until the suspect reinitiates communications with police, or his counsel is present. Giving renewed warnings after an invocation of rights is not an exception to this rule. Minnick v. Mississippi, 111 S. Ct. 486 (1990).
The problem often becomes identifying whether the suspect has actually invoked a Miranda right. Sometimes suspects give ambiguous responses when asked if they will waive their rights or, during a post-waiver interview, question officers about attorneys. In such situations, Kansas officers may, but no longer are required to, cease questioning and seek clarification. In State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 880 P.2d 1244(1994), the LEO read the suspect his rights and asked if he understood them. The suspect replied "I'm not sure what I want to do." The LEO was not sure what to do, so he did not further question the suspect. The Kansas Supreme Court, relying on the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), and held that interrogators do not have a constitutional duty to cease questioning and ask clarifying questions to ascertain whether a suspect's ambiguous reference to counsel is actually an invocation of his right to counsel.
(f) Conduct of the Defendant: "Qualified" or Limited Waiver
(1) Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987). If police honor limitations imposed by the suspect, resulting confessions are admissible. In this case, suspect repeatedly told police he would talk to them about an incident bur refused to give a written statement unless his attorney was present. Miranda gives the defendant a right to choose between speech and silence, and Barrett chose to speak."
(2) Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42, 103 S.Ct. 394, 74 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). Rape suspect agreed to take a polygraph after release on bail and consultation with retained counsel. Prior to polygraph, executed Miranda waiver. After examination, LEO asked suspect to explain deceitful answer and suspect admitted involvement in rape, but claimed consent. Statements were admissible because discontinuing polygraph did not effectuate significant change in character of the interrogation.
(g) Waiver After Assertion of Rights
Miranda gives suspects right to cut off questioning by invoking their rights, and LEOs must respect that right, but suspects can waive their rights after an invocation provided the prosecution can show LEOs "scrupulously honored" the right to cut off questioning.
(1) Michigan v. Mosely, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). Robbery suspect was questioned and invoked. Two hours later, another detective began questioning suspect about a murder and, after Mirandizing suspect, obtained incriminating statements. The statements were admissible because the first interrogation immediately ceased; questioning resumed after a significant period of time and a fresh set of warnings; and second interrogation was unrelated to the first.
(2) State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 802 P.2d 558 (1990). KBI agents interviewed murder suspect at his house and obtained a blood sample. Nine days later, another agent asked suspect to come to police station in Hutchinson. Suspect did not have enough gas to get there, so agents gave him a ride. Suspect was not handcuffed. Agents advised suspect of his Miranda rights and told that he was free to leave. Agents began confronting suspect with statements of other witnesses, and suspect told agents he wanted to see a lawyer. The two interrogating agents ended the interview and started to take the suspect home. On their way out, their supervisor, unaware that suspect had invoked his rights, asked if the suspect would talk to him. Supervisor told suspect that in similar cases many people were able to justify the crimes in their minds and it was important for suspect to straighten things out. Suspect asked to speak to one of the other agents, and asked for a pack of cigarettes. Supervisor left the room and was then advised suspect had invoked. Supervisor returned with the cigarettes and told suspect that, because he had requested a lawyer, the agents could not talk to him unless he requested them to. Supervisor also said if laboratory tests came out positive, suspect would be arrested. Agents allowed suspect to sit in the interview room alone for about 11 minutes. Suspect called for an agent, and eventually signed written confessions. Confession was admissible because agents scrupulously honored suspect's right to cut off questioning.
(3) State v. Lane, 262 Kan. 373, 940 P.2d 422 (1997). Borderline mentally retarded murder and kidnaping suspect had a series of conversations with LEOs over the course of a few months. During the first interview, suspect invoked right to counsel. Questioning stopped immediately, but detectives searched suspect's home later that day pursuant to suspect's written consent and found incriminating items. Suspect later made numerous contacts with law enforcement officials and either offered alibis or criticized individuals who had told police suspect was involved in murder. Once, officers were at suspect's house interviewing his mother and suspect initiated contact with LEOs and provided two alibi witness names. Suspect continued initiating contacts with LEOs. LEOs did some research on interview techniques to use in child murder cases, including putting items relating to the crime and folders with the suspect's name in the interview room so that the suspect would realize he was the focus of the investigation; the interviewer should be an older, fatherly person; the suspect should be given a verbal Miranda warning rather than a written one; other murders should not be mentioned, and the suspect should be provided with a scenario allowing him to shift the blame to others. After suspect again initiated contact and said he wanted to take a polygraph, he confessed to two murders. Court held polygraph session was not custodial interrogation, pointing out that suspect was advised of his rights three times; he received several breaks; he used the restroom;, drank soda pop, and smoked; LEOs did not threaten Lane or make any promises to him; and suspect never requested an attorney during the interview.
(4) State v. Norris, 244 Kan. 326, 768 P.2d 296 (1989). A defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel, which attached upon custodial interrogation for an earlier offense, terminates upon defendant's release from custody for that offense. When defendant has not remained in continuous police custody, and interrogation begins concerning a later unrelated offense, the right to counsel will only vest again upon request by defendant.
1.7 Miranda: Nature of Offense, Interrogator, and Proceedings
(a) Questioning About Minor Offense
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). There is no Miranda exception for minor crimes such as misdemeanors or traffic infractions.
(b) Questioning by Private Citizen
Miranda was directed at coercive police practice and its safeguards only apply to custodial interrogation. Miranda defined interrogation as"questioning initiated by law enforcement officers." Suspect must know they are talking to government agents. Thus, a police informant placed in a cell with a suspect can obtain incriminating statements without giving Miranda warnings. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S.Ct. 2194, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990).
However, this tactic will violate a suspect's Sixth Amendment right to counsel if that right has attached; and if police exercise coercive techniques, the incriminating statements will be inadmissible. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), where a paid FBI informant befriended murder suspect and offered him protection from other inmates in exchange for truth about rumors he killed his 11 year-old stepdaughter. Suspect admitted that he had killed the girl and provided details about the crime. C
(c) Questioning by Non-police Official
Although interrogation is defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers," the Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to expand the definition beyond just police officers. In Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), the Court held it was immaterial that the statements were made to a court-appointed psychiatrist conducting a competency evaluation rather than a police officer.
(d) Other Special Concerns
(1) Interpreters - K.S.A. 75-4351
K.S.A. 75-4351 requires appointment of an interpreter for a deaf or mute person, or a person whose primary language is not English, in certain circumstances, including when that person is the subject of custodial interrogation. The appointment must be made before any attempt to interrogate or take a statement. K.S.A. 75-4351(e).
(A) State v. Nguyen, 251 Kan. 69 (1992). If police fail to obtain such an appointment, a subsequently obtained statement or confession may be admissible if it is shown that the statement was given voluntarily, freely, and understandingly.
(B) State v. Salcido-Corral, 262 Kan. 392, 940 P.2d 11 (1997). Murder suspect whose primary language was Spanish seemed to understand LEOs questions in English and responded in English. Suspect was Mirandized in English, indicated he understood, and waived. He also gave consent to supply blood, hair and saliva samples. Suspect used an interpreter for the preliminary hearing and the trial. At trial, the State noted for the record that on three different occasions the defendant answered the question asked before it was interpreted for him, although all three of these questions were asking the name of the defendant, his brother, or the person who told the defendant he had to give blood. Court held that compliance with statute is immaterial if totality of the circumstances indicate waiver is knowing and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
(2) State Opens the Door
State v. Hills, 24 Kan. App. 2d 1, 941 P.2d 404 (1997), rev. granted ___ Kan. ___. If prosecutor uses a defendant's inculpatory statement, the defendant can introduce exculpatory statements even though defendant will not testify at trial.
(3) Application of Rules to Police Officers
Police Officers do not have "watered down" Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights when their conduct could constitute a crime. However, public trust position officers occupy requires that they account for actions taken in the course of performance of their duties. Therefore, investigators must either offer the suspect immunity from criminal prosecution for compelled statements, or suspect can invoke right to remain silent and be subject to discipline for insubordination when they refuse to account for their actions. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493, 87 S Ct 616 17 L.Ed. 2d 562 (1967)(police officers fixing traffic tickets); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 US 273, 88 S Ct 1913, 20 L Ed 2d 1082, (1968)(police officers engaged in gambling, bribery & corruption).
(e) Proceedings at Which Confession Offered
Although statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible at trial, they may be admissible at other proceedings such as proceedings pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, K.S.A. 59-29a01 et seq.. See Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986).
2. The Right to Counsel
The Sixth Amendment expressly guarantees a defendant's right to assistance of counsel. Courts interpret the Amendment as prohibiting police initiation of interrogation once a defendant asserts his Sixth Amendment rights, unless and until the defendant initiates communication with the police and waives his rights, or counsel is present.
This right is case specific. In other words, it applies only to interrogation concerning the case in which the suspect is charged. Maine v. Moulton, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). Moulton was indicted for theft and suggested to his co-defendant they kill the witness. Co-defendant later recorded conversations with Moulton about the thefts. Tapes were admitted at trial. The Court reasoned that the fact a defendant is charged with one offense is not reason to give him special protection in investigation of another. Of course, the suspect may also invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.
(a) When the Right to Counsel Begins - History
(1) Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). Sixth amendment right to counsel attaches when defendant is indicted and his status changes from "suspect" to "accused." Accused was released on bail and discussed his charges with a co-defendant who was cooperating with police and who was wearing a wire. Statements were held inadmissible because Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached.
(2) Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). Escobedo was picked up and questioned regarding a shooting. A retained lawyer bailed him out of jail. About 10 days later, LEOs received new information that Escobedo was the shooter. LEOs arrested Escobedo and began interrogating him. Escobedo repeatedly asked to talk to his attorney. The lawyer came to the police station, but LEOs did not allow him to see his client. Escobedo confessed, and his written confession was used as evidence against him. Court held confession inadmissible as violation of Escobedo's Sixth Amendment rights, partially because Escobedo was clearly the focus of the investigation.
(3) Miranda. Appeared to displace Escobedo.
(4) Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). In this "Christian Burial Speech" case, Court adopts Massiah analysis and holds that right to counsel attaches "at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated" whether by "formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information or arraignment."
(5) State v. Bristor, 236 Kan. 313, 691 P.2d 1 (1984). DUI defendant has no right to consult attorney prior to taking Breathalyzer examination. It is not until after the test has been administered that the State commits itself to the criminal prosecution. Therefore, criminal prosecution had not begun when defendant was asked to submit to a breath alcohol test. Since the criminal prosecution had not begun, and since it was not a "critical stage," it necessarily follows he had no Sixth Amendment right to consult counsel before taking the test.
(b) Waiver of Counsel
Again, must be knowing and voluntary, and waiver must be expressed to a government agent.
(1) United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Communications to an undisclosed undercover informant acting for the government (a "jail plant") do not come within a knowing and voluntary waiver because defendant was unaware he was speaking to a government agent.
(2) Waiver after assertion rules governing custodial interrogation also apply to Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases. Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1968). "Preserving the integrity of an accused's choice to communicate with police only through counsel is the essence" of Jackson. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988).
(c) Infringement of the Right
Means exclusion of evidence. Massiah, 377 U.S. 201 (excluding self-incriminating statements obtained by co-defendant carrying radio transmitter); Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (excluding incriminating statements resulting from "Christian burial speech").


text:
Now we're talking!
Among the milestones this year are Kenya Barris becoming the first solo African-American series creator to be nominated for comedy series, as well as Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang of Netflix's "Master of None" becoming the first Indian-American and Asian-American series creators to land a comedy series nomination. John Singleton, a director of FX's "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story," became the first black helmer to be nominated for an Oscar and an Emmy.


text:
Carbon Offsetting
Carbon offsetting is rapidly rising in importance. The world's carbon emissions are increasing at an alarming rate and offsetting your carbon emissions is a powerful mechanism to help in the battle against climate change and global warming.
Benefits of offsetting are not only carbon emission reduction, but depending upon the offset project type, they can bring benefits to the wider environment, as well as local, social and biodiversity benefits.
What is a Carbon Offset?
A carbon offset allows individuals and companies to reduce carbon emissions buy buying carbon credits in carbon reduction projects. These projects may be through:
Each carbon credit is equivalent to a carbon reduction of 1 tonne of CO2.
The Offsetting Process
The process of offsetting emissions involves procuring carbon credits and then retiring the credits on behalf of the organisation. In order for a carbon credit to be have credibility, it must be:
In order to meet these criteria, there are carbon offsets available from various verification schemes, including:
Circular Ecology are able to procure and retire verified carbon credits from a broad range of providers.
How to Offset Your Emissions
The process of offsetting your carbon starts by understanding how much carbon you would like to offset and the reasoning behind offsetting.
If your goal is simply to contribute to society, then you may be willing to set an offset budget, match that to an amount of carbon in tonnes CO2 and then the carbon credits can be procured and retired. This will provide the proof you need should you wish to make claims on how many tonnes of carbon your organisation has offset, or how many trees have been planted, which you may wish to use in your annual CSR report.
However, this approach would not allow claims of carbon neutrality or net zero carbon. That requires the highest level of assurance.
Carbon Neutrality and Net Zero Carbon
Should your goal be to make claims of carbon neutrality, or Net Zero Carbon projects, the process will need to start with a detailed measurement exercise. Carbon footprint assessments must be in adherence with recognised footprint standards. Well respected carbon measurement standards include:
We are able to advise on appropriate carbon measurement standards and to undertake the assessments. Adherence to these standards provides the level of quality necessary for the carbon calculations. The assessment would have further assurance from an external or third-party review.
Once the amount of carbon has been established, to the appropriate level of assurance, the carbon credits can be procured and retired on your behalf. Retiring a carbon credit ensures that no one else can buy the credit.
What is the Financial and Societal Benefits of Offsetting?
The Gold Standard, one of the main carbon verification and registry schemes, has conducted researcher on the wider benefits of carbon credits. Their research indicates that there are additional economic benefits of each carbon credit and that they contribute to various UN sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with benefits on biodiversity, livelihood and health and employment.
Their research (https://www.goldstandard.org/articles/gold-standard-global-goals) indicates that a carbon reduction of 1 tonne of CO2, through the Gold Standard, has a wider financial benefit of:
These values are all well in excess of the costs of a single carbon credit.
How Much Do Carbon Offset Credits Cost?
The cost of offsets vary considerably and the market is supply and demand, so could be liable to change at any moment. However, as a rough guideline, carbon credits can be procured from verified offset schemes from less than £2 ($ / €) a tonne CO2. Projects in that low-end range tend to be renewable energy projects in Asia and are likely older vintages. However, they are still verified carbon credits.
There is considerably more choice in the range £5-10 (($ / €) a tonne CO2. Within this price range it is realistic to have a choice of country or region that the offset occurs, as well as project type, such as forestry, renewables, cookstoves…etc.
The most expensive offsets tend to be forestry-based credits, which are currently desirable and have many other wider benefits.
How Much Carbon Will I Need to Offset
This is best established through a carbon assessment. However, to provide some rough guidelines, the carbon emissions from various activities:
These values should be used as a rough guideline only.
Where Can I Buy Carbon Offset Credits?
Circular Ecology can procure carbon credits from reputable schemes, including Gold Standard, Verified Carbon Standard and the UN Clean Development Mechanism. Carbon credits can be procured from various countries and regions around the world.
We operate a website dedicated to carbon offsetting, called Offset My Life. For each tonne of carbon offset via Offset My Life, a tree will be planted and 10% of profits are directed to good causes.
To offset your carbon please visit Offset My Life.
Further Information
To discuss carbon offsetting further, please don't hesitate to contact us.
You may be interested in signing up to our Newsletter or reading our latest News.
Trending Content


text:
A CONSULTATION event showcasing proposals to redevelop Park Street car park as an aparthotel, with a new underground car and cycle park below it, will take place on Thursday 16 May.
Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), which is a partnership between Cambridge City Council and Hill Investment Partnerships, is working with its selected development partner, Marick Real Estate (MRE), to submit a detailed planning application for the redevelopment following the consultation.
The comments received during the consultation event will help to shape proposals for the final planning application.
The event is open to all to attend and will take place at the Guildhall from 2pm to 9pm. Display boards will be on show illustrating how the new aparthotel and car park will look.
Council officers, representatives from MRE and the hotel operator will be on hand to explain the proposals in more detail and answer any questions.
The redevelopment is set to include a premium aparthotel operated by the Wilde brand for StayCity with a maximum of 229 rooms (keys), a publicly accessible courtyard with landscaping and a food and beverage offer tailored to its guests.
The basement car park is set to provide 225 publicly available car parking spaces including Blue Badge parking, cycle parking spaces, motorcycle parking space and facilities for electric vehicle charging.
Cllr Lewis Herbert, Leader of the Council, said: "Creating a new underground car and cycle park and adding an aparthotel at Park Street will be a major improvement for this part of the city centre.
"We will be replacing an outdated car park with a scheme that will add a long-term economic boost for the area north of the historic city core, including electric charging able to service every parking place in the future.
"The new car park will offer 60% of current car capacity which reflects actual usage and aligns with our strategy to encourage people to use public transport in order to improve air quality.
"The aparthotel will diversify the city's visitor accommodation, helping to increase the length of stays which is good news for local businesses.
"We will continue to work closely with Park Street Liaison Group, residents, businesses and the local primary school to keep them informed about the process and to minimise disruption once the redevelopment gets under way."
Marcus Boret, Director of MRE, said: "We are delighted to be working with Cambridge City Council and Cambridge Investment Partnership to deliver this scheme, where we can demonstrate our skills in complex urban mixed use redevelopment encompassing stakeholder liaison, demolition, archaeological investigation and deep basement construction."
Simon Walford, Development Director (UK) of Staycity, said: "We are delighted to be opening Wilde in such a fantastic destination and as part of this superb city centre scheme. Cambridge is perfect for our mix of both leisure and business guests who will enjoy the city's many cultural and historic attractions as well as its plentiful restaurants and cafés.
"With new Wilde properties due to open in Edinburgh and Berlin this year, in addition to our first Wilde in London's Covent Garden, we are excited to add Cambridge to our pipeline of first rate European cities which also includes properties planned for Paris, York and Dublin.
"Our aparthotel guests typically stay three to four days, so it's essential they have a wide choice of restaurants and cafés in the immediate vicinity. For that reason our Wilde sites are located in the centre of cities, and this one will support those local businesses in the Park Street area and the wider city."
Information about the proposals which will be displayed at the consultation event on 16 May is also available online at [link removed].
Comments can be submitted online at the consultation website, by email to: firstname.lastname@example.com leaving a name and address along with comments or by post to Park Street Car Park, ELG Planning, 55 Coniscliffe Road, Darlington, DL3 7EH.
The deadline for comments is Friday 31 May.
A planning application could be submitted this summer with works starting to get under way on site in early 2020.