STATE VS. GEORGE R. MELENDEZ A-0640-08T4
Relying on the public safety exception in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655-56, 104 S. Ct. 2626, 2631, 81 L. Ed. 2d 559, 557 (1984), and State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 618 (2007), the trial court admitted inculpatory statements defendant gave in response to officers' questions about the location of the handgun he used to kill his wife. Defendant was in custody and had invoked his right to counsel.
Assuming the claimed "public safety" meets the criteria in State v. Stephenson, 350 N.J. Super. 517, 525 (App. Div. 2002), we are persuaded by the reasoning in United States v. DeSantis, 870 F.2d 536, 541 (9th Cir. 1989), and hold that the same "exigent circumstances" that permit the pre-Miranda interrogation of a defendant, permit the police to question a defendant after he or she has invoked the right to counsel.Pursuant to Stephenson, we hold there was an insufficient basis to apply the public safety exception. We affirm, however, because the trial court correctly found defendant waived his right to counsel, independent of the initially tainted interrogation. 10-26-11
