A jailer concerned about the mental health of a jail inmate did not violate the man's rights by listening as he incriminated himself in crimes, the state is arguing.
The jailer, who made no effort to stop the man, later wrote up their conversation in a report that prosecutors could use.
La Crosse County Circuit Judge Elliott Levine erred when he suppressed the statements made by defendant Christopher Devenport to jailer Deborah Moan, Assistant Attorney General John A. Blimling wrote in his appellate brief, filed with the District IV Court of Appeals. Levine found that defendant Devenport's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated.
Quoting from court records, Blimling wrote that Levine saw the issue as "whether, once Devenport 'started to launch into stuff,' Moan should have said 'listen, let me get the doctor and we’ll go from there' or whether she could 'sit there passively and allow him to essentially spew all the information out at that point in time.' ”
"The court reasoned that Jailer Moan could have had (the jail's mental health professional) Ben Pfiffner talk to Devenport instead, which would have ensured that Devenport’s mental health concerns were treated with confidentiality," Blimling said.
Devenport was charged in September 2020 with 19 crimes, including 14 felonies that alleged domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault, among others.
Moan found Devenport sitting in his cell with a towel around his neck, looking upset. Moan asked Devenport if he was OK, and Devenport said it was his daughter's birthday, and that he had a no-contact order with her, Blimling said. Devenport said he was hoping to be released.
Moan learned from a colleague later about the serious charges Devenport faced. She had serious concerns about his well-being because he already was upset and it was unlikely he would be released on signature bond, Blimling said.
Moan eventually approached Devenport about talking to Pfiffner, but Devenport told her he was fine.
"She asked him if he had someone to talk to and told him 'if there was anything [jail staff] could do for him, that he just needed to reach out,' ” Blimling wrote.
It was then that Devenport, in the words of Levine, started to "spew." He talked to Moan for about 25 minutes and admitted sexually assaulting one of the girls and to other acts.
Moan did not try to stop Devenport, nor did she read him his Miranda rights because she was not trying to incriminate him, Blimling wrote.
Devenport moved in Circuit Court to suppress his statements, arguing that Moan should have known discussions with him were likely to involved the criminal charges he faced and so were "interrogations" under the U.S. Constitution. He also said his statements were involuntary due to his fragile emotional state.
Moan, though, was not trying to elicit incriminating information from Devenport and so he was not entitled to the Miranda warning, Blimling said.
"She...asked if he had anyone he could talk to and suggested that he reach out to her if he needed anything. Nothing about that prompt was reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information, and it therefore was not an interrogation within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment," he said.
"Devenport’s reasoning would effectively bar jailers from talking to any upset inmate without first delivering the Miranda warnings due to the possibility that they are upset about the charges against them," Blimling wrote.
Although Levine did not rule on the issue, Devenport also claimed Moan's interactions with him violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which prohibits the government from deliberately soliciting incriminating information from a defendant in the absence of an attorney unless the defendant has waived the right to have counsel present.
Blimling essentially reiterated his argument that Moan did not deliberately elicit incriminating information.
The full appellate brief in 2023AP1234, State v. Christopher M. Devenport, is here.
Devenport was represented in Circuit Court primarily by attorney Todd Schroeder. The case was prosecuted by La Crosse County Assistant District Attorney Susan Donskey.
The case is on hold while the Court of Appeals ponders.
Comments