Police detained, questioned man after he was found with blood on his hands and pants
By Denise M. Champagne
The Daily Record Newswire
ROCHESTER, NY — A Genesee County man is seeking to overturn his murder conviction because he claims police improperly invoked an emergency exception when they interrogated him without reading him his Miranda rights or allowing him to talk to an attorney.
Scott F. Doll, 51, formerly of Corfu, who was convicted of killing his business partner, is represented by attorney Timothy P. Murphy of the Buffalo firm Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP. Murphy has asked the state Court of Appeals to address the boundaries of the emergency doctrine which allows police to question someone without counsel or Miranda warnings if they have reason to believe someone’s safety is in jeopardy.
His client was detained and questioned by police for several hours, but there is a dispute on when he was actually in custody and when questioning under the emergency doctrine should have ceased.
According to court documents, a Genesee County sheriff’s deputy was responding to a report of a suspicious man hiding between parked cars in Pembroke shortly before 9 p.m. Feb. 16, 2009, when they came across Doll, who had blood on his pants, shoes and hands and was carrying a car jack and lug wrench.
Doll, who told the deputy he had worn the pants while butchering a deer and just put them on because it was cold out, was taken back to his van where fresh blood was found inside and out, after which the deputy told Doll he would detain him until he could sort out what happened.
Other deputies arrived and after Doll told them he could not take them to the deer or tell them the source of the blood, they ignored his request for an attorney, thinking there may have been an accident or assault and started contacting his family and friends to see if any of them needed help.
Several hours later, Doll’s business partner, 66-year-old Joseph A. Benaquist, was found beaten to death in the driveway of his Pembroke home and Doll was charged with his murder.
Murphy told the Court of Appeals panel that there had to be a known person in danger for police to interrogate Doll for several hours under the emergency doctrine; that 99 percent of case law involved police knowing for a fact that someone was in danger.
During arguments Sept. 3, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman asked why, from a policy perspective, a known person needed to be involved.
“Doesn’t it stand to reason that when you have someone who’s soaked in blood, some new, some old and walking down the highway in that situation, that someone might be in terrible trouble that would justify, under our precedents, the police reaction that it’s an emergency situation?” he said.
Murphy said without a known person, the right to counsel is endangered. He said the police had no idea if a person was involved or an animal.
Murphy also said Doll was in custody when he was patted down and placed in the backseat of a patrol car after the person who made the 911 call saw him, but William G. Zickl, a Genesee County assistant district attorney, argued custody occurred much later.
Murphy cited the second tier of People v. DeBour, 40 NY2d 201, under which police have a common law right to question someone when they suspect criminal activity, but said that only applied until Doll was taken into custody.
“The problem is custodial interrogation,” Murphy said, noting “almost all” emergencies have not only a known missing person, but an indication that person is connected to the one they are questioning.
“What should the police have done?” Judge Lippman asked. “Should they, given that circumstance, that visual, should they have let him leave?”
Murphy said they should have let Doll go, that there was nothing stopping them from continuing to investigate.
At his 2010 trial, Doll sought to suppress incriminating statements he made to police and a friend in front of an investigator, but Genesee County Court Judge Robert C. Noonan denied his request. Judge Noonan’s decision was affirmed July 6, 2012 by a split Appellate Division, Fourth Department with three of five justices saying the emergency exception did apply.
“The need to gain information about a possibly injured victim or victims permitted the deputies to continue questioning defendant, despite his request for an attorney, under the doctrine that is variously known as the rescue, emergency or public safety doctrine,” Justice Nancy E. Smith wrote for the majority. “’Under New York’s emergency exception, police officers can continue to question a defendant even after the defendant has requested an attorney if an individual’s life or safety is at stake,’” People v. Kimes, 37 AD3d 1, leave denied, 8 NY3d 881, reargue denied 9 NY3d 846.
The two dissenting judges said a new trial should have been granted; that the exception did not apply because police were not aware a victim existed that might need assistance.
Murphy told the Court of Appeals there is nothing in the record to support the majority’s finding that there was proof someone was in danger.
Judge Eugene F. Pigott asked at what point would the emergency be over and a defendant would be able to invoke a right to counsel.
Murphy said when police discover what led to the emergency, but there still has to be a connection to the suspect and that there was no connection to resolving the emergency and bringing Doll to the police station.
Zickl said he found no case law indicating a known person had to be involved for the finding of an emergency situation. He also argued there have been many cases where simply handcuffing or restraining a person did not indicate custody.
“The point that I think is very important in this context is that the deputy said to the defendant, when he put the handcuffs on, ‘I’m not arresting you, OK? I’m just going to detain you for a bit until we can sort some of these …’”
“Does that always work?” Judge Smith interrupted. “You mean all you have to do is say don’t worry, I’m not arresting you, just put your hands behind your back and well, I’m giving you some nice bracelets and then he’s not in custody? Sounds like an easy way around Miranda to me.”
Zickl said a reasonable, innocent person would realize they presented themselves in a suspicious way and would be let go once police realize there is an innocent explanation. He said that did not happen in the Doll case, but a reason innocent person would not think they were in custody and would be free to go.
Zickl cited Kimes and People v. Krom, 61 NY2d 187, as allowing a defendant to be questioned without Miranda and after invoking a right to counsel.
Krom, which adopts the emergency exception, provides justification for police to detain and question someone if they have “reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need to intervene for the protection of life…”
Zickl said the emergency ended when Benaquist’s body was found about 1:30 a.m. Feb. 17, 2009, and that any custodial interrogation after that could not be allowed.
As for custody, he said Doll was in custody starting at about 9:30 p.m. or 9:45 p.m. when the deputy told him he was not providing them with the information they needed and that they would have to continue questioning him. The Appellate Division ruled Doll was in custody when he was first handcuffed at the scene.
Zickl said the detention ripened into probable cause when the body was found and that arrest did not occur until about 3 a.m. the next morning.
Judge Jenny Rivera asked what happened to the invocation of the right to counsel, to which Zickl said it would occur after the emergency had abated, which is when Doll spoke to a friend in front of police.
Those statements were also not suppressed by the lower courts because they ruled the friend was not acting as an agent of the police.
Zickl agreed it was unusual for police to allow someone in to talk to a murder suspect.
Doll was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He is housed at the Sullivan Correctional Facility in Sullivan County.
