Daren D. Fenderson was arrested by Detroit police in connection with a murder investigation when the constitutional violations began, according to the Michigan Supreme Court. After repeatedly invoking his right to counsel while in custody, Fenderson was told by investigators that he had no attorney and could not obtain one — tactics the state's highest court has now deemed unconstitutional.
Background
Fenderson's case centers on an interrogation that began shortly after his arrest on murder charges in Detroit. While in custody, Fenderson repeatedly requested an attorney, invoking his Fifth Amendment protections under Miranda v. Arizona. Nearly three hours into his handcuffed interrogation, Detroit Police Sgt. Reginald Beasley told Fenderson that he did not have and could not obtain counsel.
The court found that officers deliberately exploited Fenderson's confusion about his rights. When defendant asked whether he could use money from his possession to hire an attorney, Beasley stated he could not. Officers then crafted what the trial court described as a "scare tactic" designed to undermine Fenderson's assertion of his right to counsel.
Beasley told Fenderson that police would take him back to the Detroit Detention Center and submit a warrant for a prosecutor to review — information defendant found confusing. When Fenderson expressed he did not understand what was happening, Beasley responded that defendant had requested an attorney so officers could not speak with him about the case.
The Investigation
According to court documents, police told Fenderson they had attempted to call a lawyer but no one was available and defendant lacked funds for representation. After keeping Fenderson waiting approximately two and a half hours without counsel present, investigators reinitiated contact using psychological pressure.
Beasley stated that "the story you got is the story we gon' go with" — essentially telling Fenderson he would face whatever charges police chose to pursue unless he waived his rights and spoke. Fenderson repeatedly expressed he wanted "to get this over with," while Beasley continued suggesting defendant had to waive his Miranda rights in order to talk at all.
A second sergeant entered the interrogation room where Fenderson, now visibly distressed and crying, signed written waivers of his rights. Following the coerced waiver, Fenderson made incriminating statements that prosecutors sought to introduce at trial.
At the trial court level, those statements were suppressed as violations of Fenderson's constitutional rights. Prosecutors appealed, and an intermediate appellate court overturned the suppression order, placing emphasis on the written and verbal waivers obtained by police.
The Ruling
The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in a 6-1 opinion, finding that law enforcement violated both the federal and state constitutions when they exploited Fenderson's confusion about his right to counsel.
"Defendant expressed confusion, and Beasley told defendant that police tried to call a lawyer but nobody was available and defendant had no money," the court summary states. "The statements police made in this case after defendant's invocation of counsel can reasonably be understood as suggesting that defendant's right to have an attorney present during questioning was dependent on his ability to retain counsel through his own funds; these statements are not consistent with Miranda's assertions that suspects have a right to counsel and that, if they cannot afford counsel, counsel will be provided."
The majority opinion included the chapter heading: "Defendant was not provided counsel and was told he did not have and could not obtain counsel." The court emphasized it considers police statements "in their totality" when assessing whether Miranda warnings reasonably convey a suspect's rights.
Key Takeaways
- Daren D. Fenderson was arrested by Detroit Police on murder charges before investigators engaged in the unconstitutional interrogation tactics
- Sgt. Reginald Beasley told defendant he did not have and could not obtain an attorney after Fenderson had invoked his right to counsel
- Officers kept Fenderson waiting 2.5 hours then used what the trial court called a "scare tactic" to undermine his constitutional rights
- The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that police cannot suggest a suspect's right to counsel depends on their ability to pay
- Statements obtained after the violation were suppressed, and prosecutors' appeal was denied
What's Next
The case returns to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling. Prosecutors will be barred from using statements Fenderson made following the constitutional violations during any trial on the underlying murder charges.
The decision strengthens Miranda protections for criminal suspects in Michigan who invoke their right to counsel, establishing that police cannot exploit a suspect's confusion about accessing court-appointed attorneys.