Lexplug logoLexplug

Rowland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
460 So. 2d 282 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A police officer's statement to a suspect that his cooperation would be made known to the judge and district attorney does not, standing alone, constitute an improper inducement that renders a subsequent confession involuntary.


Facts:

  • Sidney Rowland was taken into custody as a suspect in a burglary.
  • Police Officer Larry Wilson administered Miranda rights to Rowland.
  • Rowland acknowledged he understood his rights and agreed to make a statement.
  • During the interrogation, Officer Wilson told Rowland that if he cooperated, his cooperation would be made known to the Judge and the District Attorney.
  • Officer Wilson did not promise Rowland any specific leniency, favorable treatment, or a lighter sentence in exchange for his cooperation.
  • Following this exchange, Rowland made an inculpatory statement.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sidney Rowland was indicted for burglary in the second degree in an Alabama state trial court.
  • At trial, the defense moved to suppress Rowland's statement to police, arguing it was involuntary.
  • The trial judge held a suppression hearing and denied the motion, allowing the statement to be admitted as evidence.
  • A jury found Rowland guilty as charged.
  • The trial court sentenced Rowland to life imprisonment under the Habitual Felony Offender Act.
  • Rowland (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, with the State of Alabama as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police officer's statement to a suspect that his cooperation would be made known to the judge and district attorney constitute an improper inducement that renders the suspect's subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible?


Opinions:

Majority - Tyson, J.

No. A police officer's promise to make a suspect's cooperation known to the prosecuting attorney and the judge does not, by itself, render a confession involuntary. The court reasoned that such a statement is not an improper inducement of profit or benefit because the officer did not give the appellant any indication of having special influence or that he would receive special treatment. The officer merely stated he would bring the appellant's cooperation to their attention. Citing United States v. Frazier, the court held that this tactic, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that an in-custody statement was involuntary, especially where the suspect was properly informed of and waived his Miranda rights. Therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the boundary between permissible interrogation tactics and unconstitutional coercion. It establishes that a general assurance to a suspect that their cooperation will be noted by the court and prosecutor is not an improper inducement, so long as no specific benefit is promised. This provides law enforcement a degree of latitude in encouraging cooperation without crossing into coercion. The ruling reinforces the totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness, where an officer's statement is one factor among others, such as the administration of Miranda warnings.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rowland v. State (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"