State v. Cullison
| Citation | 215 N.W.2d 309 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--56603,2--56603 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Petitioner, v. Bennett CULLISON, Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of Iowa, and Jean Ann Albertsen, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Lyle A. Rodenburg, County Atty., Council Bluffs, for petitioner.
Peters, Campbell & Pearson, Council Bluffs, for respondents.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, REES and UHLENHOPP, JJ.
This is an original action in certiorari to review the ruling of the respondent judge sustaining a motion to suppress in Fifth Amendment grounds certain inculpatory admissions made by Jean Ann Albertsen, who was charged by county attorney's information with the crime of murder in violation of § 690.1, The Code, 1973.
On March 17, 1973 the body of a male infant was found in a garbage bag in a public park in the city of Council Bluffs. The finding of the body was given wide publicity in the press, and all of the personnel of the Council Bluffs police department were alerted to receive leads or clues in reference to any woman known to have been recently pregnant who could not account for newborn child.
On March 20, 1973 Assistant County Attorney Richter received confidential information from a juvenile officer that a young woman named Jean, who was employed at a nursing home in Council Bluffs, had appeared to be in a condition of advanced pregnancy but had taken a leave of absence from her work for three days and when she returned to work appeared to be no longer pregnant. Richter's inquiry at the nursing home resulted in the woman being identified as Jean Ann Albertsen, who was married and lived in Council Bluffs. On the evening of March 20 officers Williams and Mitchell went to Mrs. Albertsen's home and advised her they were investigating the matter and had heard a rumor she had been pregnant. No warnings similar to what are now referred to as the 'Miranda warnings' were given Mrs. Albertsen, and she stoutly denied any pregnancy. The following day other persons were interviewed and confirmed to the officers that Mrs. Albertsen had apparently been pregnant.
On March 22 the officers arranged to have Mrs. Albertsen's car stopped by a traffic officer after she left work, and she was asked if she would go to the police station to discuss the matter with the police. She consented and drove her own automobile to the station, and was interviewed in the office of the chief of police by Officers Mitchell and Williams and Assistant County Attorney Richter. The officers and Richter testified that the assistant county attorney then advised Mrs. Albertsen of her 'Miranda' rights after they had preliminarily advised her that they had secured further information and opinions of others regarding her pregnancy. Mrs. Albertsen continued to insist that she had not been pregnant, and at that time it seems to be undisputed that Richter said to Mrs. Albertsen, 'To make this simple, you should submit to either a polygraph examination or medical examination and give us the results, or in the alternative we will continue to investigate leaving no stones unturned.' She left the office of the chief of police after agreeing to undergo a physical examination by a Dr. Farrage the next morning. Mrs. Albertsen testified that no 'Miranda' warnings were given her in the station.
The following morning Mrs. Albertsen called the assistant county attorney, Richter, and said she had changed her mind, that she did not want to take the doctor's examination but agreed to meet Richter and the officers at the Council Bluffs police station to go with them to Omaha and take a polygraph examination. She then joined Richter and Officers Williams and Mitchell and went with them in an automobile to Omaha to the office of Mr. A. E. Clinchard, a polygraph operator. The officers testified that during the ride from Council Bluffs to Omaha Officer Williams again advised the defendant Albertsen of her constitutional rights by reading to her Mrs. Albertsen, accompanied by the assistant county attorney and the two police officers, arrived at Clinchard's office in Omaha sometime between 12:30 and 12:45 p.m. on March 23, 1973. Clinchard was a retired police officer, having served on the Omaha police force until his retirement in 1963. He graduated in 1949 from the Keller Institute in Chicago which, he testified, is recognized as a school for training polygraph operators. Upon his graduation he was accredited as a polygraph operator and worked from 1949 until 1961. His basic assignment with the Omaha police department was conducting polygraphic examinations. Following his retirement from the Omaha police force, he had been engaged basically in business as an independent polygraph examiner.
a card he carried in his pocket and upon which was set out the classic 'Miranda' warnings. Mrs. Albertsen denies that such warnings were ever given her during the ride from Council Bluffs to Omaha.
After some preliminary conversation at the time, Mrs. Albertsen was ushered into the presence of Mr. Clinchard by the assistant county attorney and the two police officers, who then left her alone with Mr. Clinchard. Mr. Clinchard testified that he then explained to the defendant the operation of the polygraph machine and went over with her briefly the questions which he had prepared to submit to her. He also submitted for her signature a release form which was introduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and which because of its particular relevancy to the questions before us we set out in detail:
A. E. CLINCHARD & ASSOCIATES
City Omaha, Neb.
Date Mar. 23, 1973
I, Jean A. Albertsen do hereby voluntarily, without threats, promises of immunity or reward, and without duress, coercion or force, do agree to take a Polygraph (lie detector) examination to be given me by an employee of A. E. CLINCHARD & ASSOCIATES, for the mutual benefit of myself and the Office of the County Attorney, Pottawattamie County, Iowa.
I do hereby declare I am, to the best of my knowledge, in good health and am not undergoing treatment for any illness, disease, mental or emotional condition.
Further, the technique to be used during the administration of the Polygraph examination has been thoroughly explained to me by A. E. Clinchard.
It is further with my voluntary consent that apparatus necessary for the conducting of this examination shall be placed upon my person, and with the full understanding that such Polygraph examination will be discontinued at anytime I request same to be discontinued.
I hereby waive any and all rights that I have or may have with reference to the taking of said Polygraph examination, and the disclosure of the results and opinions arising from the examination.
I further hereby authorize A. E. CLINCHARD & ASSOCIATES, its officers, agents or employees, to disclose both orally and in writing the results and opinions to representatives of the corporations and firms above referred to, for whatever uses they may determine.
I am fully aware that the examination results and opinions could prove to be unfavorable to me, but irregardless of same, I do hereby release and covenant to forever hold free from harm, liability or damage to me arising from said results and opinions, A. E. CLINCHARD & ASSOCIATES, together with its officers and employees, as well as the above named corporation or firm who may use said results and opinions arising from said Polygraph Examination.
I release and forever discharge all and each of the above named corporations, firms, or individuals from any and all action or cause of action, claim or demand, liability or legal actions which I have now or may ever have resulting directly or indirectly, or remotely both, from my taking of said Polygraph examination and the said results and opinions, or any oral or written reports tendered because of this examination.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal at 1:45 A.M. (sic)
/s/ A. E. Clinchard
(Witnessed by)
/s/ Jean A. Albertsen
(Signature of person examined)
At no time while Mrs. Albertsen was in the Clinchard office was she ever advised of her constitutional rights by the reciting or reading to her the classic 'Miranda' warning, or in any other manner, either by Mr. Clinchard, Mr. Richter, or the two police officers.
After the release form had been signed and the preliminary questions had been gone over with Mrs. Albertsen by Mr. Clinchard, Mrs. Albertsen then admitted to Mr. Clinchard that she had been pregnant, that she had been delivered of a child, that she had not induced the birth of the child, that she had had no assistance at any time from anyone, and that she had taken the child to the park in Council Bluffs where she had disposed of the body. She also told Mr. Clinchard that she thought the baby was dead at birth.
After Mrs. Albertsen made the above statements to Clinchard, he proceeded to run the mechanical tests on the polygraph machine. Mr. Richter was called into Clinchard's office where Mrs. Albertsen made the same admissions to him in the presence of Mr. Clinchard. She was then returned to Council Bluffs and to the office of Assistant County Attorney Richter, where she was advised of her constitutional rights. She indicated she did not desire to have a lawyer with her at that time. She was subsequently charged with the crime of murder by county attorney's information and her motion to suppress was filed. Hearing was had followed by the ruling of the trial court sustaining the motion to suppress her inculpatory statements. The order for the writ of certiorari on the State's application followed.
The respondent judge prefaced his legal conclusions by a detailed findings of facts substantially as above set out. He then concluded as a matter of law that assuming arguendo the constitutionally-required warnings had been given Mrs. Albertsen during the custodial interrogation on Thursday, March 22 in the office of the chief of police and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Heiner, 83-83
...of breath test in driving under the influence of intoxicants case. Directly in point with this case, the court held in State v. Cullison, Iowa, 215 N.W.2d 309 (1974), that its review in this original certiorari action of a ruling by the trial court sustaining a motion to suppress evidence w......
-
State v. Conner
...custodial interrogation. See State v. Franks, 239 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1976); State v. Cullison, 227 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 1975); State v. Cullison, 215 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1974). It has not been demonstrated that this field has been subjected to the standards, policing and discipline which are necessa......
-
State v. Franks, 58187
...motion. There was no review of the record in totality. See State v. Winfrey, 221 N.W.2d 269, 271 (Iowa 1974); State v. Cullison, 215 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Iowa 1974). Later, in course of trial, Sidebottom was permitted to testify regarding defendant's oral self-incriminating statements and the w......
-
State v. Cullison
...as to the rule we apply. Compare Lloyd v. District Court of Scott County, 201 N.W.2d 720, 721--22 (Iowa 1972) with State v. Cullison, 215 N.W.2d 309, 313--14 (Iowa 1974). But there is a rationale threaded through our case law which, viewed in perspective, will harmonize most of our decision......