State v. Bartelt
| Citation | 2018 WI 16,379 Wis.2d 588,906 N.W.2d 684 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015AP2506-CR,2015AP2506-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel J.H. BARTELT, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs and an oral argument by Leon W. Todd, assistant state public defender.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief by Amy C. Miller, assistant solicitor general, Brad D. Schimel, attorney general, Misha Tseytlin, solicitor general, and Ryan J. Walsh, chief deputy solicitor general. There was an oral argument by Amy C. Miller.
¶1 This review concerns the point in time at which a person is "in custody" for purposes of Miranda.1 Daniel J.H. Bartelt asks us to overturn a decision of the court of appeals, affirming the circuit court's2 judgment entered in favor of the State regarding Bartelt's motion to suppress incriminating statements, and concluding that Bartelt was not in custody at the time the statements were made.
¶2 Bartelt presents two issues: first, whether Bartelt's confession to a serious crime transformed his custody status from noncustodial to "in custody;" and second, whether Bartelt's request for counsel was unequivocal such that police officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights when they questioned him the following day without counsel present.
¶3 On the first issue we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances attendant to his interview, Bartelt's confession did not transform his custody status. Rather, Bartelt was not in custody until Detectives Joel Clausing and Aaron Walsh of the Washington County Sheriff's Department took his cell phone, approximately ten minutes after his confession, and instructed him to remain in the interview room. Because we determine that Bartelt was not in custody until this point, which was after his alleged request for counsel, we need not and do not reach the issue of whether his alleged request for counsel was unequivocal.
¶4 Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.
¶5 This case arises from two crimes committed in July 2013. On July 12, 2013, M.R. was assaulted by a male suspect with a knife while walking her dog in Richfield Historical Park in the Village of Richfield. M.R. was tackled to the ground and suffered several knife wounds
before disarming the suspect, who fled the scene in a blue Dodge Caravan. Three days later, on July 15, 2013, Jessie Blodgett, a friend and former girlfriend of Bartelt, was found dead in her home in the City of Hartford. According to preliminary autopsy findings, the cause of death was ligature strangulation.
¶6 As of July 16, 2013, Clausing and Detective Richard Thickens of the Hartford Police Department had identified Bartelt as a person of interest in the attack on M.R. Earlier that month, a deputy had noticed a blue Dodge Caravan at the same park and had run the license plate, which revealed that the vehicle was registered to Bartelt's parents. Police learned that the Bartelts had a son, and were then able to match Bartelt's photograph from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation with the composite sketch drawn at M.R.'s direction. Clausing contacted Bartelt around 5:00 p.m. on July 16, and told him that the police were investigating an incident, and that they needed to speak with him. Bartelt was "very compliant," and agreed to meet with detectives at the Slinger Police Department.
¶7 The Slinger Police Department is located inside a municipal building that it shares with various other offices and departments. There is one main entrance to the building. Once inside, a separate entrance leads to the police department. Neither the main door to the building nor the door to the police department is secured during normal business hours, and there are no metal detectors or other security screening devices. Inside the police department, another door leads to the "internal portion" of the department. This door is locked from the outside, but one can freely exit. The interview room is located about twenty-five feet inside this secured area. The room is thirteen and one-half feet by ten and one-half feet, and contains a table, three chairs and a window. The room can be accessed by either of two doors, neither of which can be locked.
¶8 Bartelt was dropped off by two friends at the Slinger Police Department around 5:12 p.m. His friends waited outside. Clausing testified that Bartelt was escorted to the interview room but was not searched. Bartelt chose the seat on the far side of the table, while Clausing sat at the end, and Walsh sat opposite Bartelt. Clausing and Walsh were wearing civilian clothes; however, they both had their badges displayed on their belts, as well as their service weapons. Clausing testified that one of the doors to the room was left open. Unbeknownst to Bartelt, the interview was recorded by both audio and visual means.
¶9 Clausing began the interview by telling Bartelt that he was not in trouble, he was not under arrest, and he could leave at any time. Clausing did not read Bartelt his Miranda rights. Bartelt, who had just come from the Blodgett residence to pay his respects to the family, believed the police were meeting with him about Blodgett's murder. However, Clausing explained that law enforcement was investigating an attack that had occurred at Richfield Historic Park on the previous Friday. Bartelt was asked a number of preliminary questions and initially denied any involvement. Bartelt stated that he had been with his girlfriend on the day in question, although he could not "remember any specifics." Clausing then explained that cell phones "are kind of like GPS's," and told Bartelt, "I don't want any lies."
¶10 Clausing then observed some scrapes and a cut on Bartelt's hand and arm. Bartelt stated he did not remember how he scraped his arm, but that he had stabbed his hand "with a screw at work." The following exchange then occurred:
¶11 After reminding Bartelt that police were investigating an incident at Richfield Historical Park, Clausing said, "What if I were to tell you that there might be something that links you there." Clausing then proceeded to explain "Locard's exchange principle," which holds that the perpetrator of a crime will bring something into the crime scene—such as fingerprints, sweat, DNA, or clothing fibers—and leave it behind. The detectives added that they had found evidence "from the person that was out there," which needed to be analyzed by the state crime laboratory.
¶12 Clausing next told Bartelt that they had an eyewitness, stating, "I would hate to put down your picture in front of the eyewitness and have them say, that's the guy that was out there." Further, Clausing stated, Walsh told Bartelt they knew that his vehicle had been spotted at the park on several occasions when Bartelt was supposed to be at work. Bartelt admitted that he had been laid off for several months, and that the injury was actually the result of a cooking accident.
¶13 At this time Clausing moved his chair closer to Bartelt. When Clausing's face was about two feet from Bartelt's, Clausing told him, Bartelt admitted that he had been to the park before and that he had seen the sketch on television, but that "it wasn't me."
¶14 Walsh then urged Bartelt to help bring closure to M.R. Walsh added that he could understand why someone would do this, "especially if the person that did it explains to us what they were thinking, where they were in their life." For example, Bartelt had lost his job and hid that from his parents, and he had dropped out of college after only one semester. Walsh stated that "when things are not going well for people, they do things that are very out of character." He added,
¶15 Following a lengthy narrative from Clausing about the two types of people in this situation—those who take responsibility and those who say "prove it"—Bartelt admitted to being at the park and going "after that girl" because he "wanted to scare someone." Bartelt told the officers that he had been reading when he saw M.R., and in the "spur of the moment," he decided to "run at her and knock her down and scare her." Bartelt admitted there was no real explanation or motive for the attack; he was "just numb" and scared because "life scares me." Bartelt targeted M.R. because "[t]here was no one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. State
...279 So.3d 256, 259-60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) ; State v. Godwin , 164 Idaho 903, 436 P.3d 1252, 1265 (2019) ; State v. Bartelt , 379 Wis.2d 588, 906 N.W.2d 684, 698 (2018) ; State v. Edwards , 299 Conn. 419, 11 A.3d 116, 125 (2011) ; State v. Thomas , 202 Md.App. 545, 33 A.3d 494, 512-14......
-
State v. Dobbs
... Miranda purposes if "there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of a degree associated with a formal arrest." State v. Bartelt, 2018 WI 16, ¶31, 379 Wis. 2d 588, 906 N.W.2d 684 (quoted source omitted); see also California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 351......
-
State v. Halverson
...I, § 8 (1).6 We have generally interpreted Article I, Section 8 consistent with the protections afforded by the Fifth Amendment. State v. Bartelt, 2018 WI 16, ¶30, 379 Wis. 2d 588, 906 N.W.2d 684.7 Halverson provides no textual or historical basis to suggest any meaningful difference betwee......
- State v. Hendricks