California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. v. James Butts, et
al. (November 8, 1999)
* Public Employer: City of Santa Monica, City of Los Angeles
* Individual Defendants: Shane Talbot and three other officers
* Pro-Police Amicus: Devallis Rutledge, Bill Hadden (for PORAC LDF)
* Trial Court Decision: In favor of plaintiffs
* Ninth Circuit Decision: Affirms trial court
* Issues: Qualified immunity, Miranda warnings, federal civil
rights litigation
Butts Facts
* Two Santa Monica police detectives arrested a murder suspect,
James McNally, in Arizona, advised McNally of his Miranda rights, and
continued to question McNally who eventually exercised his Miranda
rights. The detectives kept on questioning McNally, although informing
him that anything he said after he exercised his Miranda rights could
not be used against McNally, other than for impeachment.
* At McNally's criminal trial, the trial court suppressed McNally's
statement and did not even allow it to be used for purposes of
impeachment. After McNally's conviction, the prosecutor used McNally's
statements to the detectives to argue for a stiffer sentence.
* In a separate incident, two Los Angeles police detectives were
also investigating a brutal murder by interrogating a suspect, James
Bey, handcuffed to a bench in the station. Bey repeatedly exercised
his Miranda rights, but, in response to continued questioning, made
incriminating statements, although he did not confess to the crime
* Bey testified at his criminal trial, and his statement was used
to impeach him. He was convicted. On appeal, the state court ruled
that the statement should not have been used for any purpose but
further ruled that its use was harmless error and therefore upheld the
conviction.
* McNally and Bey brought a federal civil rights suit against the
Cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles and the individual police
officers. They alleged the respective police departments were
employing an unconstitutional policy of interrogating suspects
"outside Miranda".
* The individual officers filed a motion for summary judgment on
the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied the
motion, and the officers filed an interlocutory appeal on the issue of
qualified immunity.
Butts Analysis
* The individual Officers clearly and intentionally violated the
Miranda rights of McNally and Bey.
* But, notwithstanding the violations, it is settled law that the
officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they can show that it
was reasonable for them to believe that their interrogation did not
violate clear rights possessed by McNally and Bey.
* The Ninth Circuit knocked down each leg of this defense. In the
court's view, Miranda rights are linked to the constitutional right
against self incrimination, and the Miranda rights extend to
questioning of a suspect, even if the suspect's answers are not used
against the suspect at trial.
* The court admits that, as a matter of fact, if the officers'
questioning were deemed to be mild, then they may have a creditable
argument on this issue. But factual disputes are resolved at trial,
not, as here, on a motion for summary judgment.
* The court further holds that McNally's and Bey's rights were
clearly established in case law, and any reasonable officer would have
known that the continued interrogation of McNally and Bey violated
their
rights. The court rejected the argument that prior Supreme Court
rulings sanctioned the use for impeachment of statements taken in
violation of Miranda.
* The individual officers are not helped by the fact that they were
simply following the training they had been given, since the training,
according to the court, was objectively unreasonable.
* The Ninth Circuit's decision was based upon a two-to-one vote.
The dissent argued that the law at the time of the Bey questioning in
1991 was not clear; i.e., it had not then been held that Miranda
warnings were in and of themselves constitutional rights. The dissent
did agree with the majority that the 1993 questioning of McNally
violated clearly established law since the McNally questioners (but
not the Bey questioners) made comments demeaning the role of defense
counsel.
Conclusion
This case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court which will
determine whether or not they will hear it.
