Saeger v. Champagne, Case No. 12-C-188

• Decision Date: 05 March 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 12-C-188
• Parties: PHILLIP SAEGER, Plaintiff, v. MS. CHAMPAGNE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

PHILLIP SAEGER, Plaintiff, v.MS. CHAMPAGNE, Defendant.

Case No. 12-C-188

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SO ORDERED: March 5, 2013

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Phillip Saeger, who is currently serving a sentence at the Sturtevant Transitional Facility, filed a petition seeking federal relief from his state conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.Saeger was convicted of two counts of burglary as a party to the crime, contrary to Sections 943.10(1m)(a)and939.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment with five years of extended supervision.He alleges in his petition that an incriminating statement he made to two detectives was involuntary and obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.He further alleges that the decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirming the denial of his motion to suppress the statement is contrary to clearly established federal law.The case has been fully briefed and is now ready for disposition.For the following reasons, Saeger's petition will be granted.

BACKGROUND

In the course of investigating a series of burglaries in Fond du Lac and Washington counties sometime in 2005, law enforcement officers began focusing their attention on Saeger and put out arequest that he be detained.Saeger was later taken into custody in South Beloit, Illinois, and on December 13, 2005, Detective Gerard Kane from the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department and Detective Mark Sette from the Washington County Sheriff's Department proceeded there to interview him.Detective Kane read Saeger his Mirandarights from a form, which Saeger also read and signed, indicating he was waiving his rights and agreeing to talk to the detectives.They then proceeded to question him about the burglaries they were investigating from about 8:30 p.m. until 1:50 a.m. the following morning.Ultimately, Saeger confessed to participating in several burglaries in the two counties.

Following the issuance of charges in each of the two counties, Saeger moved to suppress his statement on the grounds that it was involuntary and that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966), had been violated.Separate hearings were held on Saeger's motions in each of the counties, but the evidence, as one would expect, was essentially the same.At the beginning of the interview, the detectives advised Saeger of the crimes in which he was a suspect and confronted him with various items of evidence that they believed implicated him.Saeger denied having committed the burglaries and offered alternative explanations of the evidence they described.

After a couple of hours, the course of the interview changed.One of the detectives received a telephone call advising him that a gun had been found at Saeger's girlfriend's house.The gun was identified as being one of the items stolen in the burglaries that occurred in Fond du Lac.It soon became clear to Detectives Kane and Sette that Saeger was fearful of the possibility of federal prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm.Kane and Sette told Saeger about the discovery of the firearm and advised him he could face federal charges carrying a potential prison termof 25 years in prison.Given his age at the time (54), Saeger viewed this possibility as a "life sentence."(Response, Ex. C at 49, ECFNo. 21-3.)

At that point, Saeger began arguing with the detectives over whether he could be charged federally.As recounted by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Saeger testified that "he was scared and angry and said, interspersed with profanity, 'You . . . ain't listening to what I'm telling you.You don't want to hear what I'm saying.You want me to admit to something I didn't . . . do . . . and I got nothin[g] more to say to you.I'm done.This is over.'"State v. Saeger, 2010 WI App 135, ¶ 3, 329 Wis. 2d 711, 790 N.W.2d 543(Ct. App.2010)(unpublished).

Neither detective could recall whether Saeger made this statement, though Kane testified "it's very possible."(Response, Ex. H at 45, ECFNo. 21-8.)Indeed, it appears that Detective Kane was not even aware that under Mirandalaw enforcement officers were required to stop questioning a suspect who stated he no longer wanted to talk to them.When asked if Saeger had at one point informed them he was done talking to them, and whether they had convinced him to continue the interview by promising that they would not have him charged federally, Detective Kane responded that he did not know whether it happened that way or not.He continued: "I mean, obviously, if he stopped talking, we can't make him talk.So, he obviously continued talking for some reason and he never mentioned the word 'lawyer.'So that's all I can tell you for sure."(Id., at 46.)When asked during the hearing on Saeger's motion in the Washington County proceeding whether he would have stopped his conversation with Saeger even if Saeger in fact said he no longer wanted to talk to him, Detective Kane's response suggests he would not: "I guess I have the right to talk all night, that's how I look at it.If he wants to listen, he can; if he doesn't want to, he doesn't have to."(Response, Ex. E at 21, ECFNo. 21-5.)

In any event, immediately after Saeger's outburst, the detectives told Saeger that they were not interested in pursuing federal charges against him and that they would agree not to refer the matter of the gun possession to federal authorities.At Saeger's request, the detectives reduced the promise to writing, signed it and provided Saeger a copy.The interrogation then continued, and Saeger eventually confessed to being a "point-man" and "backup" in several of the burglaries.The statement was also reduced to writing and signed by Saeger.

On the basis of this evidence, Saeger argued in the separate proceedings that his statement should be suppressed for two reasons.He claimed that the detectives had violated his rights under Mirandawhen they continued to question him after he told them he was done talking to them.He also claimed that his statement was involuntary because it was induced by police misconduct.As to the later claim, he argued that because county sheriff officers have no authority to issue federal charges, the promise made to him by the detectives was illusory.

Both courts denied Saeger's motion, finding that he did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent and that his statement was voluntary.On the voluntariness issue, both courts found that the detectives' promise that they would not charge Saeger federally, notwithstanding the fact that they did not have the power to issue federal charges, was not misconduct and that his statement to them was not coerced.On the Mirandaquestion, however, the two courts appear to have differed in their findings as to what Saeger had said.

The Fond du Lac County circuit court, citing the testimony of the detectives given in response to the questions of the prosecutor on direct examination, found that Saeger had not exercised his right to remain silent and that, at best, Saeger had made some ambiguous statement to the effect that he hadcompleted his statement to them.The court made no finding as to precisely what Saeger had said.(Response Ex. C at 42, ECFNo. 21-3.)

The Washington Countycircuit court, on the other hand, found that Saeger's testimony as to what he had said to the detectives was essentially accurate.The court noted that when directly asked whether Saeger had made such a statement, both detectives "were only able to say they didn't recall him saying that he didn't want to make any further statements," which, the court observed, was "far from a denial that those statements were made."(Id., at 51.)Absent a denial, the court concluded, it was "forced to accept those statements ... as having been made."(Id.)

Despite this finding, however, the Washington Countycourt also found that Saeger had not unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.Viewing the statements in the context in which they were made, the court concluded that when Saeger told the detectives he didn't want to talk to them any further, he really didn't mean it; he was just bargaining with them.In explaining its conclusion, the court drew an analogy with negotiating over the price of a car with a car dealer.The court noted that a buyer will often say "no" to the dealer's last offer and start walking away without really meaning to terminate the negotiations.In the view of the court, that is what Saeger was doing here:

It seems to me that Mr. Saeger's motivation in this context was to get whatever assurances he was in the position to get that he wouldn't be prosecuted under the Trigger Lock law.That his statements that: that's it, I don't want - this is over, I don't want to talk to you any further, basically puts him in a bargaining position.The officers clearly want to be able to talk to him, because he has information they want to obtain.Now Mr. Saeger has a bargaining chip to get what he is concerned about, which is, not to be prosecuted by the Feds.

(Id. at 53.)Since Saeger's statement that he no longer wanted to talk to the detectives and proclaiming the interview over could be read in this way, the court concluded that the statement was ambiguous.

Absent a clear an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent, the court concluded that no Mirandaviolation had been shown.

Reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress, Saeger then reached an agreement with the state, and the two cases were consolidated for plea and sentencing in Washington County.On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals adopted the findings and analysis of the Washington Countycourt as to what Saeger had said to the detectives and affirmed his conviction.The court noted that in Wisconsin, "a statement is equivocal as a matter of law when there are reasonable...