COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION 1 CASE NO. 18-CR-00030 COMMONWEALTH OF KENIUCK’ PLARNTIFE enverso10/10/) : Srfany PRACT VS. CIRCUITCLERK ua Earcratgpay A “ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRRESS DEEENDANT ‘his matte having come before the Court on Defendant's motion to suppress pursuant to Anunda 1 Arigon, 384 U.S, 436 (1966), KRS 610.200, and allegations that defendants statements given to police ‘were involuntarily obtained his Court having reviewed the recoth researched the law of the matters at Inand, and otherwise being suffcinly advised, hereby, makes the following findings of fact andl conchasions of aw ‘The Commonwealth has the Burdea of Showing Law Enforcement Obtained Defendant's Confession Consistent With the Requirements of Miranda, That the Statements Were Voluntati Given, and Were Uncoeteed “In onder for an accused’ fin custody] statement co be admissible a rin, poice must have given the 2 Berns Thapkins, 560 US, ‘The Commonwealth “does not need to show that waiver of Minada sights was express, -\nSimpliit ” Berni, accused 4 Minas wasn 370, 388 2010) ang Miranda Argon apna ‘waiver’ of the sight to remain silent is sufficient to adenit a suspeets statement into evides sap a 38, iin Bate, 481 US, at 376, "Whee the prosecution shaw [bya preponderance] thar a Minada warning wes given and that itwas understood by the accused, an accuses uncoerced statement ‘establishes an implied waiver of che right to sernain silent.” Begin spat 384, ‘he Kentucky Supreme Cour in Thre Comune, G13 SW. 24 133,135 (Ky. 1981) ct. Lago Toomey 404 US. ATT (1972) hed the Commonwealth must affirmatively show bya preponderance ofthe evidence tha a confession was voluntary madeFindings of Fact ‘he Court eld a heacing on this matter on August 19,2019. ‘The Goutt wow makes the following, findings of fier purwsant co that heating: 1. On January 25,2018, Mary Gaesison (Ms. Garson) dove et son, the defendant, co the Masshall County highschool (MCHS) axing approximately 10 mingtes before 8:08 a.m: Shot fier Ms. Garrison left her som a the school, she received a phone el from him wherein he stated that an active shoorer event was ongoingat the school. -fter the phone ell, ls. Gartson, returned to MCHS and found a scene she describe as chavs 3. Acapproximately 7:57 am. dhe Marshall County ShetfP's Office (MCSO) veceived ies Gest call oquesting sistance at MCHS. Pawol Capuain Brett Edwards arsived at NCHS at appeosimately 80 aah, Nt approximately 843 am, Shes#t Kevin Byars agrved at dhe MCHS where dozens of other Fist secspondets were located. Sheriff Byars eventually proceeded 0 the MCHS weigh room after earning the shooter wis loa! there; 4. Defendant was in the MCHS weight room when Byatsanved there, Defendant matched the scription of ee alleged shooter. Sheriff Byars armed with a shotgua, upon locating the defendant, ‘mocioned for che defendant co come towards him. Defendant then place brown satchel to the side and surrendered. Sheriff Byars asked the defendant if thee were “any ott” and Defendant responded, “no, it was me, Tid ix” Defendane was taken into custody at 811 asm, |. Officers performed ihre sweeps of MCHS in an effore to clear the scene of potential coconspimtors anc. in the process, found vitims in hiding in various locations, 6. Once defendant was in custody, Deputy Cory Gartnce (MESO) and a McCracken Conny depry responded to dhe MCHS weight room and haneued the defendant: 7. The defendant cold Shes Byaes where the gun used in the shooting was locate and Shesif Byars went snd secured the weapon. ‘The gon was found in pain view in front ofthe performing art cence elip wasal found 10 0 15 feet ana from the gun |S. Captain Edward placed the defendant in is rusee: Dekerdant was instructed toe dessin the vehicle due ro safety concems, Captain Edwards depssted the scene at approsiaaely 8:22am. and arrived at MCSO with the defendant at approximately 8:30 am... Defendant wae nor questioned in route to MCSO. The defendant’ eyeghsses apparenel fll ff during the ride tothe Sherif? ofice andl were, tus, noe available to ios curing his late interview 9. Upon anival a the Sheds oie, inant took the defendant co the Shes?’ interropato oom. Detective Jeff Daniels (MCSO) came to the interrogation oom at Captain Edwards’ request. At approximately 835 am. Devecive Daniels read defendant hie Minvle rights and asked defendant if he lunuerstood them, Defendant acknowledged he knew thom to be hie Moni sghts and that he tunderstood them, Defendant was nor aflimadively asked whether he wished to waive his Minune rights bu the defendant appease to be versed in the subjeec and seemed a be expecting tobe rea his Miele sghts as « matter oF course 10 Detective Daniels shen asked defendant if he was comfortable and began to interview him. By no later than 840 am, the defendant ha fully confessed his crimes to Detective Danes 11, When the interview beyaa, only dhe detendent and Detective Daniels were present, Daniels was drewed in pin clothes. While Daniels dd have his service weapon in side holster, there was nothing inimidacing about the eavisonment. ‘The defendant ws stl in he school clothes, Originally 216, dlefenudan’s hands were hanacuffed, bur even chese retains were removed once Detetive H (MICSO) joined the interview. Defendant never complained abot the has ‘lear, when asked, that he was comfortable, Once Detective Hilbrecht joined the interview, approximately 851 a.m), Hlbece asked the defendant ithe was Ns, Garison’s son. ‘The defendant indieared that he was. Captain Hibreehe then asked the dlefendane about the locaion of his glasses. Me. Parr ported that his glass fell off in the patrol eat ‘om the way to MCSO. "The defendant never complained that his vision was affected nor asked foe his lasses. In fat, shen dhe defendant was later asked to signa Mina waiver form by Detective Hlbreeh, he cleacl could read thar one of dhe signature lines onthe form stated “Wimness" because he asked i he should sign where it “says Wimess." Defendant gave Captain Hilbrecht his home address and mother’s phone number at approsimarely 854 a.m, Ar the time Detective Hillrecht joined the interview, the defendant, Detective Daniels, ane! Detective Hilbrecht were che only persons inthe room. -\rone point ding the interview, Detective Daniels lft the interview and only the defendant and Detcetive Hilbaccht sermined, _Approsimarely 49 minutes ito the interview, wo KSP detectives, David Dick, and Cory Hamby, ‘entered the interrogation room. Detective Dick was dressed ina suit with his service piston aside holster. Detective Hamby was dressed in slicks ana KSP polo and alse had aside atm. -\t no point in the interview did the officers yell ar the defendant or conduct themselves in manne that could be ‘considered intimidating. In fer, the enti inturview was very ceased and conn. ‘The Deveetves even repeatedly provided Parker with water to dsiak. At no point dang te interview was the defendant fonmaly charged with a erm Detectives Cory Hamby and David Dick joined the conversation and brought defendant a cup of wate. ‘They intsoduced themselves as “David and “Cory.” Detective Dick shook defendant’ hand and asked the defendant for pexmission sit beside him. Detective Hamby advised defence that he shoud fel fice w corer things the officers say ibe Fee they ave incorrect. \pproximately 57 minutes into the interview, Detective Hlbrecht asked defendant if he was read his rights and the defendant confirmed thar Detective Daniels fad previously read theta ta him, “The dlefendan chen signed tae Mauda waiver form from which Detvetive Daniels previeusly had cad defendant is rgh's. Ar this time, Detective Hamby asked defendant if he had questions abe his ‘ghts, andl Capain Hilbrecht reminded defendant that he was not obligated to talk wo dhe officers. The defendant showed no heszation in engaging in communication about the shooting. Infact, the {defendant appeared eager co ell what edd \pprosimately one hour and twenty-four minutes ine the interview, Detcetive Hamby brought FBI agent Shawn Miller into the interview coom. Agent Miler greeted the defendant and shook his hand, Agent Milles was dressed in esl closhing Atappeoximately 1122 am, the defendant invoked his ight vo counsel. KSP Detective Sempeant Trey Green attved at MCHS at approsimately iM aun. Detective Green put ‘ona tactical vest and proceeded to assist in clearing the school of any teas Detective Groen found nwo vietims in the weight room and attempted to contact EMS. He also found the satchel dar had been in defendant's possession. He and another fice took the satchel ta the CHS track. The officers suspected an incendiary device could have heen in dhe satchel. \ knife and paper with defendant's name were in the satchel. Detective Groen dicted Detectives Cory Hamby sed avid Diek to go to MCSO sand paticipae in the interrogation ofthe defendant because KSP oiices had been informed their agency would be leading the investigation at this pointDetective Greet leamed KSP world e leading the investigation, asthe ranking KSP officer on seen, he began giving directives tothe Troopers at MCHS, Detective Green was given punts and secondary household contact information for dhe defendant from the school inchading phone numbers by 200m. Ar approximately 9:00 aan, a the direction of Detctive Green, KSP Detective Ese Fickts and hooper Chris Smith left the seene co attempt to locate the defendan’s pacen(s). ‘The reason for diving to de residence was to ensue the defendant ha not alsa harmed his parent, to investiga, ‘whether the patents or another family member was involved in the shooting to prevent taupening sith Physical evidence, and to comply with KRS 610.200. cds and Sith arrived at defendant's residence approximately 9:22 .m. where ther were greeted by the defendants stepfather, \e226 am, defendanr’s stepfather texte his wife, Ms. Garson, to inform her police were at their home to discuss the shooting at MCHS, -\tapprosimately 20 aim, defendant's stepfather called Ms. Garson and informed her thar police had told him the defendane was the suspected shooter, ‘Trooper Smit stayed arte defendant's residence until after 400 pan... Defendant’ stepfather never nade ay euests via ‘eooper Sinith reganling counsel for his stepwon or stopping ay interrogation, 22, Kentucky Stare Police Trooper Jay Dunn was dicted to attempt to contact defendant's motrin person by Detective Green at approximately 9-45 am., Dercctive Green told Trooper Dun that Ms, Garsison was a¢ NCHS neat the entrance. ‘Trooper Duan called for EMS suppot for Na. Gartison duc to her having a panic atack at approximately 9:46 a1, shortly after she had learned from her husband thar hex son was the suspected shooter. Ms. Gartson did nor request an attomey ot requcr that officers stop interrogating her son a this ime. 23, Although called at approsimately 9:46am. EMS did not ative to assist Ms. Gareson u approximately 10:20am. Ms. Garrison's coworker, .\nn Becket, met up with Ns. Gi as being treated fora panic stack by EMS. Ann Becket, a the behest of Ma. Garson, infonned ‘Tmoper Dunn that ls. Garrison wanted an attorney for hee son at appeosimatcly 10223 aan 24. ‘Thaoughout the moming.artamey Bethany Willett with the Kenacky Deparment of Public Advoneny (DPA), had been in contact with Ms: Garrison. Mes. Wille snd Mi. Garnson were lon tine fcr \approsimarely 108.2, Mrs. Willett reeived 4 phon ell from Ns Garsson's phone with Ann Beckett on she other end of de ell. Inthe background Mis Willcutecaukl hear hs, Gattson asking for help forheeson. Once DP. was appointed to represen the defendant, Mrs, Willett went to the irif’s office where defendhnt was being interrogate. By the ne Mrs. Willut arrived, however, the defendant had already invoked his ight 0 counsel and tye interrogation had ceased. Even if Defendant's Statement was Obtained in Violation of KRS 610.200, Suppression of the Statement is Not Warranted Unless the Statement Can Be Said to Be Involuntary Law enforcement is required to immediately notify a minors parents « minors ares pursuant KRS 610.200. Se Alp» Com, 50 SMV-3d 173, 184 (Ky. 2001). KR 610.200 staves in part ‘When a peace officer has taken or eeeved child into custody on a charge of committing a offense, the officer shall immediately inform the child of his constitutional rights aud afford him dhe protections required thereunder, notify the paren, or if he child i committed, the Department of Juvenile Justice othe cabinet, 2s appropriate and ifthe patent is aot available ena telatve, ‘vain, or person exercising custodial control or supervision of the cil, thatthe eh has been taken into custody, give an account of specific charges sins the cul, including the specific statute alleged to have been violated, and the reasons For tk the child into custo ERS 610.2004).‘he defendant was atested at approximately 8:1 a.m, Within less than a hour of defendant's ares, lw enforcement arranged for one officer to locate the defendant's morher st the high school and so more to personally go to defendant's home. Defendants moter and step-father were notified of Alefndtnt’s atest ust over an hour afer it occusred. Given the chiotie nature of the day, the rine Fame in hich nodfcation occursed was not only Iyally sufficient, but commendable. The defense addesscs this ‘matter asf notification to the parents must eeur the momenta juvenile is taken into custody regaales of the circumstances surrounding dhe event that ad to his arest. Here, agencies fiom across Westem K fr schoo! students, which lea to the death af tuckysesponded (o an incident involring hundreds of bi two of those students sid into many others. As was tenified to by law enforcement a the suppresion hearing, legitimate concemns existed that day abour the defendant's family’s welfare, theie potential involvement in eximinal activin, prevention of tampering with evidence relevant co the evime, and the list goes on, Law enforcement cannot be made 69 set aside every ptiocty, no matter how significant, simpy ro comply with what the Kentucky courts have ruled is essentially technical notification stare that, at best, configures into the analysis of whether wt ‘defendant's statement was given voluntarily, Law enforcement made a prompt and diligencartempr to ‘contact defendant's mother and stepfather, and shat they were succesfully notified before defendant wat Formally charged with any offense. While KRS 610.200 as imexpected by case lw requies “immediate” ‘orifieaion to parents upon the amest af a juve lar cnc efforts wo contact defendant's parents begun as soon as practically could be espeeced. Furthermore, atthe suppression hearing, lw enforcement articulate a ational basis to conclude personal nedfcation, as opposed to telephonie, was appropriate ‘under the chaotic ctcumstances that existed on Janoney 23,2018, Specifically, law enforcement could Hor assess whether either of defendant's parents were involved in the incident by-a mere phone ell, nor could thee welfare be assessed sulficienly by a phone call. ‘This Court concludes law enforcement sufficiently compli with KRS 610.200. fn argo, even ifthe statute was violate it is well setled in the ‘Commonviealth that a court may aot suppress a defendan’s confession based vn a mere technical violation oF KRS 610200, ‘The Supreme Court of Kentucky in Sleplerdn Com, 251 SWV.3d 309 (Ky. 2008) held a police officer's faihae to comply with KRS 610.220 dil nor joss suppressing an atherwise voluntary confession of the defendant who was sisten vents af age ae the time of the offense, ‘he defendaat in that matter was renced *o life in prison without parole fora minimum of rveney-ive year. (Sie abe, Tiler Commarea, 276 ‘convicted of first-degree murder, s-degece obbery nl tampering with physical evidence and se SSNV.3d HOO (Ky. 2008) holding an officer’ flue, by itself, to immediately acti a juveniles parent of thejoven’ arrest and charges in accordance with KRS 610.200, dacs not render the juvenile's coafesion Jnvoluntary or inadmissible) Only if de statements were obtained involuntaly should they be suppressed, ‘The Defendant's Micanda Rights Were Not Violated ‘The United States Supreme Court in Mauda: Aigoms, 384 US, 436 (1966) held hae law ‘enforcement officers, pris 1 interegating a suspect in cust, mast advise the suspect of er rigs only Provided by the Fh Amendment ofthe United States Constinution, fa at 478,479. ‘This x com known as the Ménmnds Waming. The Commonwealth beans the buden of showing bya prepondcrance of the evidence, thatthe defendant waived his Mina tights, Dili e Canmouneatih, 475 SWSa 1,14 (Ry 2015), A waiver does not have co be express. Ie may be implied through a defendant's conduct onee be has ‘been advised and shows that he understands ce sights is tlinguising, Sie Wie Civ, 422 SW’3d 26 271 (Ky. 2013)! “The record reflets that defendant, when asked, identifi the tights he was read as *Mnuedights” he second does not show ans indication tar be lacked the showing an elevated legal understanding, ‘capacity to read, wtte, or compreiend concepts appropriate for his agen fact, his high level of imelligence was noted by investigating officers multiple ties, Defendant wis asked iFhe had any questions regarding his Minunda rights and was advised aauhipletims chat he was not required co speak with lw ‘enforcement. Yer, cach time defendant reknowledged his unde envi and din to particpats inthe conversation. Defendant even pointe t the signanae line on a Minne waiver form andl signed the ‘exptess waiver form when Deteetive Hilbrect cnne into the interview room. “The reo is lea chat fas sac ead defendant his Mind rights rive ro quesconng itm? ‘The Court comeludes thatthe ath has sufficiently proven tha che defends nlerstood his Miwa Rights and hat his Pattcipation inthe interogation in conteaventon of those rights constituted an implicit waiver of his Minus Rights der Ws sop "Ths quae fom an option ofthe Eaters Dion of he Ste Dns a Oho clel states ta an en defend th force wa ete oak hit he weston ight bless Nee the Mimi te its progeny eae the plc as a supe exe wher be wdc ag nd eae ne Legs ‘ean af deans Mae gh cde lea wage ha detent games bond nce Ci Ss Me 580 Sp 2015 921 61 Oho 29), The Commonweal conc note tht the Commonweal aot vila defn Me Rights when She Bras asked Defend there wee oe sheers ad wher tg loca bafoe sing detent hs ih ene ose Sesto ills sgurey win he emergency eaeption at by he Une esac Ct Nek nb US eo aon 6‘The Defendant's Statement Was Voluntarily Given, Confessions must be voluntarily given to be admissible. Ss, Bashan $12 US, 218 (1973). ‘he Commonwealth bears the burden to show a confession was valnaty bya preponderance of fhe evidence. Sn, Talorn Cam, 613 SW. 2133, 135 (Ky: 1981). ‘The txt for voluntarness is base on the ‘ony of the cccumstances surrounding the confession. Mi. Cam, 996 84V-2d 473, 481 (Ky. 19). Th ‘Sopreme Coust of Kentucky in Hear n Ca, 20 SWV-3d 466 (Ky. 1999) set outa three-part rest to determine whether a confession i voluntary (whether the police activity ws ubjoctvely eoctcve’s 2) whether the enereian wvedbore te wil uf the defeats and 8) whether she detindann showed that th rca monvaning far Dehin the detendanseomfession, enereive police activny was the Hn 40, For juveniles, «fourth aetoe should be considered: compliance with KRS GIN. Tayler Cane SAWSA SHC, 8 (sy. 20H, he United Sates Supreme Count in -Dygone Pina 499 US. 279 (19), hela detndanes conesion involuntary al dhs inadssible, In dha mutes, the defendant was suspected in the musder of bis eeven-seamuld stay daughter wuss bral ws fun in dh deat rear Meza, Nevo, fat 292, chong the deendant was nor inital charged ithe mu, he was incarcerated in New ork on vonelted changes. hi. While incarewated in New York, the detcndant was bei by a dimer police ‘offices wh had! become a paid content informant for the Federal Bureau af Ivestipation (MD), a at 243. ‘The MIN instructed the inanmant 1 lak int the iling despite the defends cominaed devil of nm oar inmates whe pupostely involvement, The informant afte to protect dhe defendant f tha che defend was invulved in dhe eleven-year ols death, 4d, Wh broad aru yn, the lena cleaned his stor and admitted 1 cain the ciety eo dhe esert where Ie abuse a ile he 14 tn the Couns hokling, concluded eredble threat of wiclence was salient to constitute cele Hane a an a sl thal tate af SLM hs siesta esha tt hte pe sre Mo Wiser ie sa: em lpi ie wna cil al sya eh al LE ketene a aan ts an iNo Coescion Occurred, Even if KRS 610.200 Was Violated ‘When considering whether coercion oceutted, covets must look tothe length of dhe detention, the Presence of counsel, and factors such as deprivation of food or sleep. See Slmklth, ups, 412 US at 226. Given dhe alleged violation of KRS 610.200, chs Court must also consider the impact of any violation on the voluntariness of Nr. Parker's statement 0 police, Unde totality ofthe cixcumstances anlysi the ‘court does not use a check ist approach limited to past pelice behaviors chat have been found tobe inherently coereive, Se, Buy» Cam, 194 SWV.3d 296, 302 (Ky: 2006) In the anater, sin, defendant was well informed of his ight ro counsel, but chose to speak with officers regardless. No written waiver of Mies was cequized.” Although itwas clear the dfendane was speaking with poice officers (they ad side arms ete), the dress of the officers inthe room was relatively ‘sual, Defendant dd not have his gasses on during the interview, but he cleanly demonsttated the ability to read without his glasses, and ican haedly be said that he protested the absence of his glasses, Lav enforcement made no thy 15 of physial haem dung che interview, the interview wns tlaively short less thin 2 hours), the officers were very cordial andthe defendant's intial confession occured inthe fist ten minutes of che interview, duving which omly one detetive was present. Defendant also indicate! he had eaten breakfast that moming and had gotten plenty of seep the farbefore. During the interview law enforcement broupbr te defendane wat swine times Defendant indicated he didnot tke medication of any kind nor suffer from any Formally diagnosed Psychological condtinn. “Therefore, it nor easonsble to conchide that defendant was depsived of Food, sleep, or medication, char the interview was und prolonged, or that any other factor existed which would scasonably lead one to conchae that defendant's statements were anything but voluntary. An inteerogation Jess coercive or an interrogation environment mote comfortable forthe defendants dificult eo realistically imagine, Defendant's Will was Not Ovetborne slerenined aw enecentent dil engin luner Hema r Com, pra ens, However, agus, tis Court concludes that, even if coercive conduct could be Found on the part of lw enforcement, ther is no evidence that defendant's will ws overbome."he Kentueler Supreme Cavart in Baily Cia, 194 SW. 296 Ky. 2006), pel dhe tial courts lew vio cha confession was involuntary procured when the defeat bad ssn itil lunerstaning his Wines rts, posserse an 1Q a 50, ws ieee, was i spscal edcationscouyes in sell betone dropping ont in the 9” grade, had mo experince wth lw enforcement, 2nd espen testimony suggested dhe confession was the result ofthe defendant nici arecing with sn authority figure ace repeat denving the allegations daring seven haw inierogaton, Jos commas, she Kentucky Court of \ppeats in Bri Cone, S12 SWW.2 406 (Ky. App. 1974 concluded a eonessin bya inosieated sixpect ws voluntary because in thar matter, the defendant Bead capaci’ to undeestand an lhe tulle 50 tater defenutan id mar deny dhe offense in any fashion, lsc nical he ae! been the indent for aboura week, He Figased out ho co aire a yum and take ic w seo without anyameseving i, He stove that ihe held nt the Foran extended perio famuly member wold slscover in was missing, Heals thought to beng knife ea backup weapon. Fe even stated heehee the Aacation ofthe commons ate inthe scoot because he dd aot want to hurt any otis Hens He als cold ‘lficers he knew chat by ffng into a ero somevne cond de ade woke sent prison. Mier the shouting, detendne hid with other smdents until he was discovered and apprehennded, “Te record is eles that thedetendane’s will was noe ons noe ovetbome, bur quite the opposite: it appears he very anucl santa tll what be ih his Court concludes defendant mors analytically stated similar to Pit rather than Bay Dbecanse there is nev ience that dhe Defensa’ staeneuts ate elle or that he lacked eapacity 0 ‘understand ana ell he ruth, Further, the defendant stated Ie ccs not use dings alesho ake any peseription mecca dhetetine thee is even more reason in this matter than in Ste bative defendants staements were voluntary. Furthermore, defendant's descipians,analtieal thar process, educations level and histor an articulation niate ih level of ineligonce making this mater istingishable fro as yer he Court's opinion, dhe rea setccrs deena wane rel is uy tela enforcement, "There it > loubr the detendant’s confession was the work of his own will and volun hice Del es Right to Counsel and RCr2.14 Were Not Violated "he defendant makes claim that his @ Amendment Right to Counsel was violated when Detsetive Hillrocht (MCSO) denied Mrs. Willett acces to the deferdane at approximately W408 aan. ‘The defendant also lain sis violated RCz 2.14. ‘The Court dsagsees with both claims,Hw Ssh verdnent ight ta counsel “ass mt at commenced” Mucins Gilpi Gig SSEUS WL 98 DNS Cr ISS FL ald So Ne: Wino, SOLUS 1 T'S 1 Sy 3900, 18 La 9 Ht commences on at ar ater ke inion vt ah ooary jil riminal peevedinee —ashether by in 1 formal carer, prelminsy hearing crn lnfurmeacion, or arclgnmen.” Ki (quiting Goin 467 Sat 188, WA SCL 2293), orm Cie Nie 985. WAN, Foe mater os seton Bua hee comnciced apis dhe defendant antl wel after fe Ba svserte hs right tm eaansel‘appninaely H02-44n). Hheelbne, any allegation of a sslaion of dhe ight wo counsel” need be sade arcane dt meulpatory, made by a defendant subjected to casa ntermgation, te prosecution nt ernest that He Appell wasalese his Pui Amendment vibe ncn the night to remain sent aa ie tora anorners Mizondt brine, SLUS. gr 444, 86 SCC 9161 J Js ma be waived andthe taenients may easel agains dhe detent i the waver knowing deny al wtlligent Canis» Casonth, 226 SNV 34 62 (Ky. 2007). “The Cour has alee ral sha 105 Amendment violation occured, ‘The hey is that dhe defendant di nor ask for counsel until 1022 asm, and no parent, guasdian, or any other amily member jnvoked the defendant's ight to counsel on his behalf until a east 10:18 am, (thats ithe Couee were to ‘consider che crntents she cll fom) Ms. Garrison's phone to Methany Willut at 10118 an iavexation of ‘the might to counsel), In reality, che fist legate request for counsel coukl most reasonably sid to hav ‘ome fiom Ann Becket’s message telayed to "Trooper Dunn a approsimately 10:23 am. (stent requesting counsel for the defendand, Hewwever, even ithe UhI8 phoae call resulted in an “invocation” of "he righ to counsel, noting incriminating was said y the defendant between 10.18 a.m and the end of che werview that hadn't already been said. Tn essence, she “eat wa already out of the bag’ long hefore any wocaton ofthe right to counsel occurred, "he defendant makes ko makes lim that his statements ust be syppressed becawse lave ‘enforcement denying Ms, Wieut access ro the defendant a approximate 10.08 am. violated RCe 2.140, Ce 2.140) states in relevant pars ‘uy stonney a Lo enti te prtctice in the erat: oF this Catmmeamecsty shall he esti, a the request of the pers im eustaeh or of sta se acting in that person's musty, ROP2142) invoke his 5* Ameen ight cen the toys! fer cusl mst be ea and wean. U5» ge 38 FSepp28 915 SD. Ohi 28) The conan fhe convertion rweea ic Wile, ls Garant a Ak Bethe sa ec st Weal ana ie sid oe he een By 18am, esata i en eve. 10"he defendants claim dha RCr2.14 was violated is significantly Raed” No paren, guatdian, or ‘ther family member or careaker asked an atarney to vst withthe defendant atthe Sheriffs office until at best, the phone eal rom Ms Garrison's phone 1 Bethany Willett at 10:18 aan took place, ‘This Coure ‘was previously under the impression hat invocaton by Ms. Gattson on behalf of her son fad oceusred Prine to Mes. Willeur’s visit wo the MICSO at approsimately HN am. Howevee, the testimony at the suppression hearing was clea that such did not occur. In this Court's previous order appointing counsel for the defendant, dhe Court held: ...omeengued by te miler fie eid to dos, ay licensed attorney, regardless of whom th ‘employer may be, may intervene on behalf of the child and attempe to ‘counsel him duting interrogation.” See Onder entered January 24th, 2018, [eis now clear that Ms, Garrison did not engage Mrs. Willeute or any other atomcy to intervene on behalf of the defendant ‘unl a lease 10:18 a1m,, and more likely, not until 1:23 aan.. ‘Therefore, no violation of RCr 2.14 ‘ould have occurred prior 0 10:18 a.m. (4 minutes before the interrogation ended). \s the Court has already ruled, any statements made between 10:18 a.m. and the end of the interrogation were petitive, Nothing new was said in those 4 minutes. ‘Thus, even if the 10:18 phone call resulted in an invocation of the right ro counsel, no harm occurred, dus no foul can be called CONCLUSION ‘Wherefore, the Court concludes lw enforcement didnot violate KRS 610.200, by ano, even fa iolaton of thar statute occurred, grounds do nor exist co suppress defendant’ starements; defendant's Highs pursuant co Minar Iya, spr, were honored: and defendant's statements were volun given ‘without coercion from law enforcement. Further, she defendants Right to Counsel was not violated nor was RC 214 Deb nton opps deere DENIED, Dated his the YO day of October, 2019, The defen en ing "wher an stores eit spied o ating pie ienean to hater ew enforcer shod lio thar arn ees os ean pcs to REV TAG) Te Ce ses, owe "het mst hea mrs by the pen ead or oncom ning ott Dhl ht he atoms be peo eee enon ese aleeks Certificate Ipisherey cena hat copies ofthe foregoing have becn mad othe following ths the ALO Se of 0, Denis Foust, Esq, ‘Tom Griffiths, Esq. esmonwealth itomney 438 West Wali St. 80 Judicial Drive, Unie 120 Danuille, KY 40422 Benton, KY 42025 Doug Moore, Esq. ot ‘Cle, Marshall Ciceue Court 2