State v. Starr

1

State of Iowa, Appellant, v. Faron Alan Starr, Appellee.

No. 23-0858

Supreme Court of Iowa

March 29, 2024

Submitted February 19, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A Neary, Judge.

The State appeals a district court order granting a motion to suppress due to failure to honor a defendant's request to call a family member following arrest and arrival at the police station. Affirmed and Remanded.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden (argued) and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

Lucas M. Taylor (argued) of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellee.

OPINION

Mansfield, Justice.

I. Introduction.

Iowa law requires that a person who is arrested be permitted to call and consult a family member or an attorney (or both) "without unnecessary delay after arrival at the place of detention." Iowa Code § 804.20 (2022). In this case, we are called on to decide whether a police officer could refuse an arrested person's request to call his father in order to obtain an attorney and instead question the arrested person. The State argues that the officer did not delay "unreasonably" because there was a paramount safety issue: the arrested person had fled a crime scene the day before and was suspected of having burglarized two long guns in the course of his flight; when arrested, he did not have the guns on him.

We do not foreclose the possibility that public safety concerns can justify a delay in honoring an arrested person's invocation of Iowa section 804.20, but we conclude that the circumstances here did not. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress.

II. Facts and Procedural History.

On the morning of November 7, 2022, M.N. ran into a convenience store in Sioux City, yelling that her boyfriend, Faron Starr, had just assaulted her. Starr was holding a knife as he ran up to the store behind her. M.N. had a stab wound in her leg. By the time law enforcement responded to the call from the store, Starr had fled the scene. M.N. was taken to the hospital.

Within a few minutes, a report came in of a burglary at a house within a block or two of the convenience store. The house was located in the same direction Starr had fled. The homeowner reported that an AR-15, a shotgun, and ammunition were missing. Police suspected that Starr had committed the burglary. They ordered that two nearby schools and the hospital be placed on lockdown and continued to try to locate Starr.

The following day, November 8, the lockdowns were lifted even though Starr had not yet been found. Starr was eventually arrested at around 3:30 p.m. outside the hospital where M.N. had gone for treatment. At that time, Starr also had an outstanding warrant for a parole violation. But he did not have the knife or guns in his possession.

The police took Starr to the Sioux City Police Department and called in Detective Grimsley to question him. Detective Grimsley took about forty-five minutes to arrive at the station and enter the interview room. He asked Starr a few questions. After a couple of minutes, he read Starr his Miranda rights and asked him to sign an acknowledgment.

Starr equivocated. Initially he said, "I don't really care to talk to anybody." He added, "I've been trying to talk to people for a long time." But then a few moments later, Starr said, "I really do want to talk to you." Starr started answering Detective Grimsley's questions and interjected that he would sign the acknowledgment. After another minute of questions and answers, Detective Grimsley reminded Starr of his need to sign the acknowledgment:

[L]ike I said, I've got to get acknowledgment from you that you're willing to talk to me. If you sign that it doesn't mean you have to sit here and talk to me for three hours. You can stop at any time.

Detective Grimsley filled out the acknowledgment with Starr's name and handed it to Starr. The discussion then proceeded as follows:

Detective Grimsley: Okay. Just right there. We can talk a little further.

Starr: I just really don't see how that would help anything.

Detective Grimsley: How about that if you're willing to sign it and listen, I can talk to you a little bit?

Starr: I just wish we can just get to the point.

Detective Grimsley: That's what I want to do.

Starr: Because we're not legally -- we're not -

Detective Grimsley: What's that?

Starr: In other words, if I don't touch this thing, then we're not legally allowed to talk or something?

Detective Grimsley: Exactly, yeah.

Starr: Then why don't I just call my father and have him get a lawyer and we can sign this paper and we can talk?

Detective Grimsley: Well, that's the thing. That wouldn't happen today.

Starr: Nothing.

Detective Grimsley: But I want to talk to you today, right now.

Starr: I just don't even, I don't know if that's a good decision or not.

Detective Grimsley: Yeah.

Starr: Like I just said, it's not you as a person. Nothing like that. I don't -

Detective Grimsley: I understand.

Starr: -- know what the hell is going on.

Detective Grimsley: Yeah. And we can't obviously give you advice or anything like that.

Starr never did sign the acknowledgment of his Miranda rights. However, the interview between Starr and Detective Grimsley continued. About thirty-five minutes later, Starr admitted stabbing M.N. with the knife. He implied that he had dropped the knife while running away. After another fifteen minutes or so, Detective Grimsley raised the subject of the missing guns:

Detective Grimsley: One thing I am concerned about is a couple guns that got taken yesterday.

Starr: Okay.

Detective Grimsley: I don't want those guns on the street anymore.

Starr: Okay.

Detective Grimsley: Do you know where those guns are?

Starr: You want me to get rid of them?

Detective Grimsley: I want them off the street, yeah.

Starr: You want to get rid of them?

Detective Grimsley: I want to get them off the street. Yeah. Starr: Well, let's go get them.

After additional back-and-forth, the police agreed to Starr's proposal that he would personally lead them to the house and the individual with whom he had left the guns. The guns were retrieved, and the parties returned to the police station. Detective Grimsley's questioning resumed and became more specific about the events of the previous day. Starr admitted to more details about the stabbing and the burglary of the guns.

Toward the end of this questioning, over two hours after Starr's initial request to contact his father, Starr asked again to call his father. Starr also said he wanted to apologize to M.N. Detective Grimsley said he could not let Starr call M.N. but offered him the opportunity to call his father. Detective Grimsley volunteered to bring a phone. He asked Starr if he knew his father's number; Starr shook his head. There was a phone book sitting on the desk in front of Starr. The discussion moved elsewhere and ended soon thereafter.

On November 16, a trial information was filed in the Woodbury County District Court charging Starr with willful injury as a habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.4(2) and 902.8, second-degree burglary in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.5(1), going armed with intent as a habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.8 and 902.8, domestic abuse assault third offense as a habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.2A(4) and 902.8, and two counts being a felon in possession of a firearm as a habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code sections 724.26(1) and 902.8.

Starr filed a motion to suppress his statements of November 8 and evidence developed therefrom. He asserted violations of his constitutional rights to remain silent under the United States and Iowa Constitutions and his statutory rights under Iowa Code section 804.20. The State responded that Starr had not unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights. The State also argued that a public safety exception to both Miranda and Iowa Code section 804.20 applied given the urgency of locating the stolen firearms and ammunition.

The district court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Detective Grimsley was the only live witness, but the police station videos of Starr's questioning were also presented. On the matter of public safety, Detective Grimsley testified,

The guns were probably -- definitely my top priority in this. They were unaccounted for. We didn't know where they could have gone. We didn't know if they were stashed somewhere.... [W]e were searching garages and alleys, dumpsters, yards for these firearms.... [L]ike I mentioned, this is a -- a rather large residential area.

Detective Grimsley added that his concern was,

That anyone and everyone walking around could have -- could have picked them up and found them. Kids walking back and forth from school could have found them. And they're very, very dangerous weapons. So we didn't want that to happen.

The district court issued a ruling partly denying and partly granting the motion to suppress. The court found that Starr had not made an unambiguous invocation of his Miranda rights, so there was no constitutional violation:

This evidence does not demonstrate clearly that Starr intended to exercise his right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions from Detective Grimsley. Starr's response, when heard on the recording, clearly conveys a desire to speak with Grimsley, but with some hesitation and equivocation that appropriately prompted Grimsley to seek clarification. Grimsley's effort to clarify whether Starr would be willing to speak with him and thus waive his right to remain silent was reasonable and necessary in order for him to properly navigate the Constitutional safeguards

...