By the Way, Medical Rule-Out Questions Constitute "Interrogation"

 State v. Skapinok (HSC June 3, 2022)

Background. Leah Skapinok was charged with driving under the influence. One summer’s night, Officer William Meredith saw a white Toyota Tacoma speeding down King Street. He followed it onto Ward Avenue and saw it weaving before getting onto the H-1. Once on the freeway, he saw it cross the solid white line and move across three lanes without signaling. Officer Meredith pulled the truck over. Skapinok was the driver. Officer Meredith smelled booze on her and saw she had red, watery, bloodshot eyes.

 

Officer Meredith believed he had enough to arrest her for reckless driving, but he didn’t. He instead asked if she was willing to participate in the field sobriety tests. She was argumentative at first but gave in when Officer Meredith told her that if she did not, she would be arrested. Corporal Ernest Chang showed up and talked to Officer Meredith. Corp. Chang agreed that there was probable cause to arrest for reckless driving.

 

Skapinok asked Corp. Chang if she would be arrested for declining to participate in the fields. He told her that she could already be under arrest for reckless driving. Corp. Chang asked seven medical rule-out questions—including the one about whether she was taking medication. Skapinok said she was taking Wellbutrin, which Corp. Chang knew that when mixed with alcohol can cause intoxication. Neither officer Mirandized her. Based on her answers, the officers conducted the tests. Based on her tests, they arrested her for drunk driving.

 

Skapinok moved to suppress the evidence gathered at the scene. The district court—with the Hon. Judge Summer Kupau-Odo presiding—granted the motion. The prosecution appealed. The ICA vacated in part and affirmed in part. Both parties petitioned to the HSC.

 

Another Concession by the Prosecution. Once again, the prosecution here conceded that Skapinok was in custody and the HSC did not apply the test it refashioned in State v. Sagapolutele-Silva. Therefore, it did not address the initial question of whether the totality of these circumstances—like the repeated threat of arrest if Skapinok did not participate in the fields, being stopped in the middle of the night, and being told that there was already enough to arrest her—was enough to deem her in “custody” thereby triggering Miranda warnings. That question is left for another day.

 

Medical Rule-Out Questions are “Interrogation” Under the Hawai'i Constitution. “No person shall . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself.” Haw. Const. Art. I, Sec. 10. This right is violated when the police fail to warn suspects about the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the other rights in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when they subject the suspect to a “custodial interrogation.” State v. Kazanas, 138 Hawai'i 23, 35, 375 P.3d 1261, 1273 (2016). Interrogation refers to “(1) any words, actions, or practice on the part of the police, not only express questioning, (2) other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, and (3) that the police should know is reasonably likely to invoke an incriminating response.” State v. Trinque, 140 Hawai'i 269, 277, 400 P.3d 470, 478 (2017).

 

The prosecution urged the HSC to deem the medical rule-out questions “attendant to police procedure” and therefore not a form of interrogation. The exception has already been carved out by the SCOTUS for the Fifth Amendment. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990); see also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (police inquiries “highly regulated by state law” and “virtually the same words” given to all suspects do not require Miranda warnings). The HSC declined.

 

Routine booking questions—when designed to elicit an incriminating response—require Miranda warnings under the Hawai'i Constitution. State v. Ketchum, 97 Hawai'i 107, 128, 34 P.3d 1006, 1027 (2001). Questions regulated by state law and are given to virtually all suspects of drunk driving are similar to booking questions. The HSC even noted that this case reflects how it can arise to an incriminating response. One of the medical rule-out questions is about medication. Here, Skapinok told the police she was taking a medication that when mixed with alcohol can heighten impairment. The HSC did not carve out an exception under the Hawai'i Constitution:

 

We . . . hold that under the self-incrimination clause of the Hawai'i Constitution, police questioning that is attendant to a legitimate police procedure is interrogation if the officer knows or reasonably should know that the question is likely to elicit an incriminating response. In other words, being attendant to a police procedure, standing alone, does not obviate the need to examine whether the officer knew or should have known that the questions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. If such questions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, they must be preceded by Miranda warnings in order to be admissible.

 

Here, the medical rule-out questions were just that—likely to elicit an incriminating response. According to the HSC, the questions themselves “gather evidence against the defendant rather than simply determine[e] whether evidence can viably be gathered.” The HSC also noted that the answers are incriminating because they will assist the officers in interpreting the results of the fields.

 

But the Performance on the Fields are not Fruits (Still). The HSC still held that the performances on the fields were not fruits just as it did in State v. Manion. The HSC explained that the officers already set out to administer the SFST before asking the medical rule-out questions. Therefore, the “officers did not exploit the illegality by continuing to gather evidence that they had already set out to gather.”

 

Justice Wilson’s Dissent. Justice Wilson agreed that the medical rule-out questions constituted “interrogation” and dissented on the fruits analysis as he did in Manion.

Note. Justice Eddins did not participate in this case. Circuit Court Judge Paul Wong joined the majority.