This interlocutory appeal arises from an ongoing prosecution for strict liability for drug-induced death, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-9, following a fatal heroin overdose. The State appeals from a trial court order suppressing incriminating statements defendant made during a stationhouse interrogation because the officers did not advise him that a death had occurred and that he was facing prosecution for a first-degree homicide offense. The trial court had initially held the statements were admissible but granted defendant's motion for reconsideration that cited to the majority opinion in State v. Sims, 466 N.J. Super. 346 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 246 N.J. 146 (2021). While the parties and the trial court knew that the Supreme Court had granted certification, they appeared to be unaware that the Supreme Court had stayed the Sims opinion. In Sims, the majority announced a new per se rule that when police make an arrest following an investigation, they must at the outset of a custodial interrogation advise the interrogee of the offense(s) for which he or she was arrested regardless of whether a complaint-warrant or arrest-warrant has been issued. 466 N.J. Super. at 367. The question to be addressed by the Supreme Court is: "[w]ere the officers required to advise defendant, who was not charged with any offenses at the time, why he was arrested before proceeding with the custodial interrogation." In the Diaz case, the court follows an alternate analytical route that does not depend on the outcome in Sims. The court leaves to the Supreme Court to decide whether police may remain silent during a Miranda colloquy with respect to the essence of unfiled charges for which the interrogee was taken into custody. Rather, the court focuses on the impact of the police decision in this instance to advise defendant of the reason for his arrest in a manner that was misleading. Under this analytical approach, the failure to advise defendant of the overdose death was a relevant factor to be considered in determining whether defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was made knowingly. The court concludes, considering the totality of the circumstances, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's waiver of his right against self-incrimination was made knowingly because the detectives affirmatively misled defendant by providing a deliberately vague and incomplete answer to his question of why he was taken into custody. The court reasons that it is one thing for police to withhold information; it is another thing entirely for them to provide an explanation that creates or reinforces a false impression. The court recognizes that police are permitted, within limits, to use trickery or deception in the course of a custodial interrogation. The court draws a fundamental distinction, however, between police trickery with respect to the strength of the evidence against an interrogee on the one hand, and trickery with respect to the seriousness of the offense(s) for which he or she was arrested on the other hand. While police are allowed to use certain forms of trickery following a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver, the court finds no New Jersey precedent that authorizes trickery as part of the waiver process. Indeed, the court notes that Miranda v. Arizona expressly held that "any evidence that the accused was . . . tricked . . . into a waiver will, of course, show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his [or her] privilege." 384 U.S. 436, 476 (1966). The court adds that affirmatively misleading an interrogee about the seriousness of the offense for which he or she was taken into custody strikes at the heart of the waiver decision. The court does not, however, propose a categorical, per se rule that any deception or trickery of this type automatically warrants suppression. Rather, the court holds that the use of such a stratagem is an important factor to be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the State has met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant made a knowing waiver of his right against self-incrimination. Finally, the court rejects the State's argument that the detectives did not have probable cause to charge defendant with the strict liability for drug-induced death offense pending the completion of autopsy and toxicology reports. Applying de novo review, the court concludes that the detectives were aware of facts constituting probable cause that defendant committed the strict liability homicide offense, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer. (A-3764-20)
| 
