Source: newsfromthestates.com 9/23/24
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed a Saline County judge’s decision to suppress a confession despite exaggerated claims by detectives that a computer voice stress test was 100% accurate and proved a defendant lied about his innocence in an alleged sexual abuse case.
A split state Supreme Court affirmed the 2022 conclusion of the Kansas Court of Appeals that an earlier decision by Saline County Judge Jared Johnson incorrectly ruled Phillip Jason Garrett’s confession was coerced by Salina Police Department detectives in violation of 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Garrett was told by officers at police headquarters that he had failed the voice test prior to the decision by Garrett to implicate himself during an interrogation in 2018. Garrett has yet to stand trial for rape and other offenses due to the appeals.
The legal dispute led both state appellate courts to reconsider finer points of how law enforcement officers could tactically lie when questioning people and when those deceptive practices infringed on constitutional rights by coercing involuntary statements.
Originally, Judge Johnson denied Garrett’s motion to toss his confession. About 18 months later, however, the judge shifted course because he decided the officers’ statements concerning efficacy of voice stress tests — a common law enforcement exam despite conflicting opinions of its value — adversely influenced the voluntariness of Garrett’s confession.
Then-Attorney General Derek Schmidt turned to the state Court of Appeals to challenge Johnson’s ruling. The state Court of Appeals’ reversal of the county judge was appealed by a public defender on Garrett’s behalf to the state Supreme Court.
Justice Evelyn Wilson, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly writing for the majority, said the Salina officers’ misrepresentation of the accuracy of the voice stress test was deceptive, but not sufficiently problematic to compromise the confession.
“Under the totality of the circumstances we conclude that law enforcement’s actions did not go so far as to constitute misconduct in violation of due process,” Wilson said. “Since the tactics here were not misconduct, Garrett’s resulting confession is not rendered inadmissible.”
Wilson wrote the presence of inappropriate conduct by police in association with a confession wasn’t enough to require suppression. The misconduct must cause the defendant’s free will to be overcome to an extent the resulting confession was involuntary, she said.
Yet another electric Quija board! Voice Stress tests prove nothing other than the speaker is under stress, much like Polygraphs prove nothing more than the subject is nervous. In fact they don’t even prove this, they simply suggest that providing answers to some questions appear to be more stress inducing than others.
The police did not act inappropriately enough to make the Quija Board’s divinations inadmissible? Really?
Interestingly, the Supreme Court of this fine country has said law enforcement can lie while in the commission of duty to some extent within reason. Law enforcement here was only doing what the Court allowed them to do. They took full advantage of it while the individual in question should have taken his Fifth amendment right and just shut up. Regardless of the appearance of invoking your Fifth amendment right, do it. Optics don’t really matter. And while at it, ask for counsel at the same time of invoking one’s Fifth amendment right.
Never, say anything to the police.
Why oh why are law enforcement at all levels not held to a higher standard? They’re literally allowed to get away with things that would send a citizen to prison, and are applauded and decorated for it. And some wonder why everyone isn’t enamored with cops.
There’s an old internet joke of how detectives got a confession out of a guy by hooking him up to a lie detector that was actually a photocopier and every time they’d ask him a question they’d press the button and it would print a copy of their page that said, “He’s lying!”
Only one word should come from your lips. “Lawyer.” Because it’s true. Anything you say can and will be used against you, even if it means altering the context. Even innocent actions without words can be used against you. One that comes to mind is a germaohobe was being interrogated by detectives and he refused to shake hands or touch the door knob and they argued in warrant requests that he was trying to conceal his fingerprints.