State v. Fenderson

Criminal Law Reform
Location: Michigan
Court Type: Michigan Supreme Court
Status: Ongoing
Last Update: June 12, 2025

What's at Stake

This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

Summary

The defendant, Daren Donell Fenderson, was allegedly involved in a fatal hit-and-run accident. When he was brought to the police station for questioning, he was read his Miranda rights—including that he had the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. But after Mr. Fenderson requested a lawyer, the police told him: “You don’t get one.” Ignoring Mr. Fenderson’s repeated expressions of confusion and distress, the police then reinitiated the interrogation and suggested that he would not get another chance to give a statement unless he spoke to them without an attorney. The police had Mr. Fenderson sign a waiver of his Miranda rights and eventually pressured him into making inculpatory statements.

The Circuit Court initially granted Mr. Fenderson’s motion to suppress the statements he made following his request for counsel, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that Mr. Fenderson’s inculpatory statements should be suppressed because he did not knowingly or voluntarily waive his rights.

Our brief makes two main points: (1) the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires suppression of Mr. Fenderson’s statements because the police misled him about his right to an attorney and pressured him into speaking; and (2) Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution provides even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment and independently requires suppression of Mr. Fenderson’s statements. We further argue that the Court should rule for Mr. Fenderson under Article 1, Section 17 even if it also rules for Mr. Fenderson on Fifth Amendment grounds, to ensure that Michiganders’ rights are not eroded by any changes in federal doctrine. Put differently, a ruling for Mr. Fenderson grounded in Article 1, § 17 would preserve the full force of the Michigan Constitution’s protections against coercive interrogation methods and ensure that justice is administrated fairly and equitably.

Decision: State v. Fenderson

The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and held that the police violated both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions by misleading Mr. Fenderson about his Miranda rights and improperly resuming questioning after he asked for an attorney. The Court specifically held that it’s not enough for police to merely administer Miranda warnings if officers subsequently undermine those warnings by confusing the person they are interrogating. Moreover, as the Court explained, a person asking about their rights does not give police free rein to reinitiate general questioning about the case. Finally, the Court highlighted that, for more than a century, Michigan has maintained strong state law protections for Michiganders against deceptive or coercive police interrogation tactics.

Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts Donate now

Related Issues