Conviction affirmed in manslaughter conviction in death of Memphis attorney Robert Friedman; officers had PC for arrest

Memphis criminal defense and domestic relations lawyer Robert Friedman was shot and killed in the parking garage of his office building on his way to work in 2002. The police developed PC to arrest defendant and went to his house to arrest him, but they did not break in. After a while, he came to the door and was arrested, and the house was searched, finding no murder weapon. The reason for the shooting was stated by the defendant during his statement: “[t]o shoot him for the cruel way he betrayed me in representing me.” He was under de facto arrest when the house was surrounded. He could move around the house, but he sure could not leave. State v. Noel, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 738 (September 25, 2006):

Although the defendant was not in the actual physical control of the officers until he stepped out of his apartment, his residence remained surrounded by officers. Using the terminology of Crutcher, there was a restraint on his freedom of movement. Thus, the defendant was under arrest at some point prior to his opening the apartment door. The trial court, accrediting the testimony of Lieutenant Williams, reached that same conclusion.

The officers had, however, probable cause, and they took him into custody, Mirandized him, and got a statement. The arrest did not taint the statement.

In the ensuing trial, the confession was admitted into evidence. The defendant had been represented by the victim in a divorce case that included a custody issue regarding his daughter. He admitted that he had waited in the parking garage for the victim and stated that his plan was “[t]o shoot him for the cruel way he betrayed me in representing me.” He described himself as in a state of despair because he had lost everything, including a place to live, in the divorce. The defendant acknowledged that he shot the victim four times with a .38 revolver from a distance of four feet. He also stated that he “wanted to kill Chancellor Alissandratos but I didn’t figure I had enough time ….” He told officers that he then drove to his apartment, changed clothes, and returned his rental car.

Comment: Defense counsel in this case did a remarkable job of getting a manslaughter conviction in the first place, considering Noel lay in wait in the parking garage and ambushed Friedman at the elevator door and hid out for the rest of the day.

In a warrantless search case, the lack of exigency question is not even relevant until the question of existence of probable cause is found in favor of the government. The search of the house was invalid. People v. Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12, 2006 Guam LEXIS 13 (September 27, 2006):

We hold that, notwithstanding the testimony of the police officers, the arrest in this case occurred at the moment Defendant-Appellee August Castro Cundiff was placed in handcuffs at the North Perino Street residence. We further hold that in circumstances where there is an otherwise lawful arrest, the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for an arrest pursuant to 8 GCA § 20.35(a) does not necessitate suppression of evidence. Finally, we hold that the testimony presented at the suppression hearing was insufficient to show that officers had probable cause to arrest Cundiff. Therefore, the evidence derived therefrom, including Cundiff’s statements at the precinct and the identification made by the victim, must be suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule as being fruits of the unlawful arrest. The physical evidence obtained at the home – the pocket knife, the pouch, and the bicycle – are admissible despite the warrantless search, as officers obtained voluntary consent to search the premises prior to recovering these items. Accordingly, the trial court is AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part.