Deceptive Topeka police detective coerced teen's confession, Kansas Supreme Court rules

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors can't use a teenager's confession because it was coerced by a Topeka police detective.

Friday's ruling means that prosecutors can't use the teenager's confession to molesting his stepsister as part of an ongoing criminal case in Shawnee County District Court.

All seven justices on the high court agreed with outcome of the decision written by Chief Justice Marla Luckert, although Justice Caleb Stegall wrote a concurring opinion.

"We conclude the detective's statements negated the Miranda warnings and misled G.O. into believing the interview's purpose was to help his stepsister," Luckert said. Inducing these false beliefs was coercive and led to G.O. confessing against his expressed free will not to talk about what had happened."

"Our Constitution does not tolerate coerced confessions," Stegall added.

G.O.'s attorney argued that he didn't knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the detective violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

G.O. was represented by Reid Nelson, of the Capital and Conflicts Appeals Office. Nelson didn't respond to a request for comment.

Why was G.O. investigated?

The teenager, identified only by the initials G.O., was 16 years old in 2017 when his younger stepsister reported while at a hospital that he had molested her. The hospital — identified in court records as the KVC Kansas Health Facility — reported the sexual abuse to the parents and the Kansas Department for Children and Families. KVC and DCF made referrals to the Topeka Police Department.

A detective interviewed the family members, and the mother thought they — including G.O. — were required to talk to police. No one said they could refuse.

The mother, who thought the police interview was arranged by DCF for the purpose of family reintegration, asked the detective if she could sit in on G.O.'s interview. The detective told her to wait in the lobby.

Did the TPD detective lie in the interview?

During the interview, the detective told G.O. that they would just "hang out," reassured him they would not be long, thanked him for coming "so we can get some stuff cleared up" and "you're not going to be under arrest when we're done."

The detective said clearing up and airing out what happened would help everyone, including the stepsister, and "This isn't about getting people in trouble." But he did read him his Miranda rights.

G.O. told the detective that he was previously molested by his day care provider's son, and that it may have a connection the sexual acts with his stepsister. The detective urged him to share details of his own molestation and his molestation of his stepsister, telling him to "rip the bandaid off" and it would help his stepsister.

"I just want to go home," G.O. said at some point. "I want to get this done and over with. Get everything just cleared up and make sure I can just be less of a wreck."

The teen said he was now on medication because of anxiety and panic attacks and that he was seeing a therapist at DCF's urging.

Despite promise, G.O. did get in trouble

The court record said G.O. wasn't arrested or charged until more than two years after the police interview.

But Shawnee County District Attorney Mike Kagay said charges were actually filed less than a year later.

"Charges were not filed until all follow-up investigation was completed," Kagay told The Capital-Journal. "The waiver to adult court did not take place until two years after the interview. That may be what you're seeing and is not atypical. Waivers generally happen later in the case."

The court record states that the charges were one count of aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of aggravated indecent liberties of a child younger. Both charges involved an offender younger than 18 and a victim younger than 14. The prosecutors were allowed to try him as an adult.

G.O. and prosecutors initially reached a plea agreement, but that was withdrawn by G.O. because the sentence recommended by both parties would have been illegal.

Prosecutors then filed an amended complaint with 60 counts: six of aggravated criminal sodomy, 51 of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, one of attempted rape and two of rape.

"The defense was made aware of the additional charges prior to the plea agreement," Kagay told The Capital-Journal. "Any felony complaint may be amended at the time of the preliminary hearing, if the court finds the charges are supported by probable cause based on the evidence presented. In this case, the preliminary hearing occurred after the plea was withdrawn."

Judges disagreed on whether to suppress confession

The defense then moved to suppress G.O.'s statements to the detective, arguing his confession was not voluntary.

The detective testified about the interview. So did the mom, who shared about G.O.'s learning disabilities and that she thought the interview was arranged by DCF for the purposes of family reintegration.

G.O. had learning disabilities that required testing accommodations but still struggled with his grades before he was moved to an alternative education program with smaller class sizes and more one-on-one time.

Shawnee County District Court Judge Nancy Parrish granted the motion to suppress.

While she considered it a "close question," what tipped the balance was that G.O. believed what the detective told him, that they were there to talk and help his stepsister and not to get anyone in trouble." Also significant was that the mom told G.O. he had to cooperate with the detective.wesq

A divided panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that "G.O. was compelled to confess not by any officer's overreaching acts, but by his own guilty conscience." Judges David Bruns and Kathryn Gardner were on the majority, while Judge Jacy Hurst dissented.

That opinion was filed in September 2022.

The case was then appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in January 2023 and issued its ruling on Friday.

What did the Supreme Court justices think?

The Supreme Court said the detective's comments downplayed the significance of the Miranda advisory and he did not reveal the true purpose of the interview, noting that such omissions and obfuscations can confuse a juvenile about the purpose and gravity of the situation.

The detective read G.O. his Miranda rights, but prefaced that by telling him: "You are not under arrest, you are not going to be under arrest ... this isn't about getting people in trouble." Rather, he said, it was about helping his stepsister.

The detective misled G.O. and "gave the impression that the interview was a therapy session rather than part of a criminal investigation."

The justices noted that "a law enforcement officer's false promise, lie, or other deception can negate the Miranda advisory."

"Here, the detective not only downplayed the Miranda warnings, but he also encouraged a full confession if G.O. wanted to avoid prosecution," Luckert wrote. "The detective also misrepresented the true purpose of the interview by repeatedly telling G.O. the purpose of the interview was not about getting anyone in trouble."

The justices said the detective "arguably promised" G.O. that he would not be arrested or otherwise harmed, even though such representations "were not true."

"They presented him with the option of helping his stepsister, and the false hope that he was progressing toward reintegrating his family, returning to live with his mother, and relieving his anxiety," Luckert wrote. "And he could gain these benefits without the threat of being arrested or otherwise being in trouble."

Adding to the "deceptive nature of the interview" was that G.O.'s mom "became a proxy for the detective" by also telling G.O. he was not under arrest and that he should share the details of what happened. The justices said the mom's trust in the detective "illustrates how someone more mature misunderstood the situation," suggesting the vulnerability of G.O.

"The detective deceptively led G.O. to believe he was not in trouble, would not be arrested, and was just there to help his stepsister," Luckert wrote.

They interrogation techniques were coercive because of the unique circumstances of the suspect, they reasoned.

Why did the Topeka police detective lie?

While the Supreme Court's ruling did not name the detective, a prior appellate court decision named him as Sgt. Ryan Hayden. Hayden is now TPD's assistant director of training and an adjunct instructor at Washburn University.

Rosie Nichols, a city spokesperson, said the city's legal department analyzes court decisions and "updates or creates training for appropriate city personnel to ensure the city is staying up to date with best practices. Cases determining voluntariness of a confession are always going to be fact-specific as the Court looked at the totality of the circumstances to determine if the confession was voluntary.

"The use of interrogation techniques or a combination thereof is to seek the truth from the individual being interviewed. The importance of determining the truth, is to protect and seek justice for the victim(s) as well as determine the alleged suspect’s involvement in a crime and protect the rights and freedoms of a person that is wrongly accused."

But at least some of the justices were not impressed with the interrogation techniques.

"Why is it so hard for this detective, or this officer, to just tell G.O. that at least a part of what he is doing in interviewing him is investigating a crime?" Justice Dan Biles asked during oral arguments 13 months ago.

"I don't know any law enforcement officer that comes in and says, 'Here is what I'm doing, I'm investigating this crime,'" replied Natalie Chalmers, an assistant solicitor general with the Kansas Attorney General's Office. "G.O. knew what he was doing when he was there."

When Justice Evelyn Wilson said G.O. thought it was part of therapy and to help his stepsister, Chalmers said: "I also find it just entirely unbelievable, personally, that any 16-year-old thinks that a detective interviewing me is the same as therapy. I just, I don't know how we're getting there."

"Is that because you have law enforcement experience?" Wilson asked.

"I think even at 16 I'd watched enough 'Law and Order' to know that cops don't just go around being like, 'Hey, I want to have therapy sessions,'" Chalmers said.

"I'm sorry, but I just don't see how what the officer did here made him unable to understand his rights, unable to invoke his rights and unable to stop talking if he didn't want to talk, or not have an attorney," she added.

Nelson, of the Capital and Conflicts Appeals Office, said it is not difficult for a detective to tell a suspect that they are investigating a crime, "and that is usually what professional detectives do."

"The reason why the detective in this case did not do that," Nelson said, "is because the detective wanted to pull the wool over G.O.'s eyes."

As for G.O.'s allegation that he was sexually assaulted, Nichols said, "TPD investigates all claims or allegations of serious crimes and would not be able to provide any additional details related to any ongoing investigations."

Jason Alatidd is a Statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at jalatidd@gannett.com. Follow him on X @Jason_Alatidd.

This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansas Supreme Court rules Topeka detective coerced teen's confession