People v. Powell

• Decision Date: 27 February 1986
• Docket Number: Cr. 14164
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Brett POWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 475

223 Cal.Rptr. 475

178 Cal.App.3d 36

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David Brett POWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 14164.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Feb. 27, 1986.

Review Denied June 25, 1986.

Annette Skovronski, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., W. Scott Thorpe and Esteban Hernandez, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

PUGLIA, Presiding Justice.

Following the denial of defendant's in limine motion to suppress his confession, he submitted the issue of guilt on the transcript of the preliminary examination. He was found guilty of two counts of burglary and sentenced to state prison.

On appeal defendant contends the motion to suppress his confession was erroneously denied inasmuch as (1) sheriff's officers continued to question him after he asserted his right to counsel, (2) the questioning was intended to elicit his confession, and (3) his waiver of Miranda rights was invalid because the officers ignored his prior request to speak with an attorney. For the reasons which follow, we have determined defendant's contentions are without merit.

Defendant burglarized the Pine Grove Market on May 23 and again during the early morning hours of May 25, 1984. On the second occasion, a citizen observed defendant fleeing in a vehicle and notified the sheriff. A sheriff's deputy stopped defendant's vehicle shortly thereafter and arrested him.

At the time of the arrest defendant informed Officer Comden that his name was David Atteberry. Comden found on the defendant a booking slip from the Las Vegas, Nevada, Police Department bearing that name. Defendant had no other identification on his person. Comden placed defendant in the back of a sheriff's car and informed him of his Miranda rights. ¹ Defendant refused to speak to the officer who nevertheless asked defendant further questions but only to verify his true identity.

After defendant was transported to the jail, the officers unsuccessfully attempted to confirm his identity using a computer and teletype. Officer Comden suspected defendant had not revealed his true name because defendant claimed he had never had a driver's license in any state, a fact the officer considered odd in light of the fact defendant was 30 years of age. Moreover, the only identification defendant had on his person was a booking slip, yet defendant stated he had never been arrested before. Furthermore, defendant seemed quite familiar with the booking process and made statements regarding his rights. For these reasons, Officer Comden asked defendant questions concerning his identity.

Detective Anderson arrived to assist in the investigation. With the admitted intention of obtaining defendant's confession, Detective Anderson readvised defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant agreed to speak with the officers with the understanding that he could "cease the interview at any time." Less than a minute later defendant said, "I want to talk to an attorney." At that time the officers ceased asking defendant questions concerning the burglary. They did continue to question him, however, regarding his identity, asking for such information as his birth date and last address.

About that time Sergeant Retagliata entered the room, introduced himself to defendant and asked to see defendant's tattoos. Sergeant Retagliata had been called to help in the identification of defendant by examining his numerous tattoos. One tattoo depicted interlocking hearts bearing the initials "D.P. and K.R." When Officer Comden asked defendant why the initials did not match those of the name Dave Atteberry, defendant replied, "I can't tell you." Detective Anderson said, "What do you mean, you can't tell us? You don't really know what the initials are or that you don't want to tell me?" Anderson told defendant that within an hour or so they would know his identity from the Department of Justice by his fingerprints. Defendant then said, "I'll tell you my name. I will give you my name. My name is Powell--Dave Powell. I am an escapee from Michigan State Prison. I will tell you about the burglaries too."

Defendant was again advised of his rights and asked if he "completely and fully" understood them. Defendant replied, "More than you know," and gave a tape recorded confession to both burglaries.

Relying on Miranda v. Arizona, supra, defendant contends the police were required to cease questioning him once he had invoked his rights to silence and to counsel. Almost two decades ago the Miranda court announced the rule that whenever an individual who is the subject of custodial interrogation indicates in any manner, such as a request for counsel, that he wishes to invoke his right to remain silent, all questions must cease. (Miranda v. Arizona, supra, at pp. 444-445, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1612.) Any statements obtained in violation of this rule are inadmissible. (Ibid.)

However, there are exceptions. "The Miranda safeguards are not necessary at a proper booking interview at which certain basic information is elicited having nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding any offense with which the defendant has been charged. (See e.g., People v. Hernandez (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d [242, 69 Cal.Rptr.448] ...; People v. Van Alstyne (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 900 ....) The booking procedure, as defined by statute (Pen.Code, § 7, subd. 21), has been described as 'essentially a clerical process.' (Kamisar et al., Modern Criminal Procedure (1974) p. 6.) The limited information needed at a booking procedure is required solely for the purposes of internal jail administration, not for use in connection with any criminal proceeding against the arrestee. When use of this information is confined to those proper purposes, its elicitation cannot be considered incriminatory." (People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368, 387, 162 Cal.Rptr. 13, 605 P.2d 843.) Consequently, the rights enumerated in Miranda, specifically the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, are not implicated by questions relating only to booking information. Identification of the arrestee is a necessary and legitimate part of the booking process (see People v. Johnson (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 168, 173-175, 97 Cal.Rptr. 332).

Defendant contends the questioning was not for booking purposes, rather it was intended to elicit his confession. It...