Ex-Astronaut Lisa Nowak gets a “Big Break” (Updated x3)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Lisa Nowak, the ex-astronaut who drove from Texas to Florida to confront a second female astronaut in a NASA love triangle, faces attempted kidnapping and other charges in a Florida court. Today, the Judge in her case ruled inadmissible a statement she gave police and suppressed incriminating evidence found in her car:
“A judge agreed today to suppress Lisa Nowak’s police statement and evidence against her, an apparent big break for the former astronaut accused of pepper spraying her rival in a love triangle involving another astronaut.
The evidence ordered suppressed by Circuit Court Judge Mark Lubet included a wig and trench coat Nowak wore, along with a knife, BB gun, trash bags, plastic gloves and green tubing found in her car at the time of her arrest in an airport parking lot.
There was no immediate word from prosecutors about whether they would appeal.
During her interview with an arresting officer, according to police, Nowak said she only wanted to talk to Naval officer Colleen Shipman about her relationship with astronaut Bill Oefelein, the other two involved in the love triangle, and that she never planned to hurt Shipman.
Her defense lawyer argued that Nowak never was properly advised of her Miranda rights to an attorney and to remain silent and also of her right to decline a search of her car without a warrant.”
Well, duh. Miranda v Arizona was decided in 1966, 41 year ago, and yet we still see cases like this. Sometimes it seems like criminals know their Miranda rights better than police.
— DRJ
Update 1: See comment 9 for some details on the Judge’s ruling.
Update 2: The Houston Chronicle article linked above has been updated, and the last sentence says Nowak has “returned to the Navy, where she is a captain assigned to the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi.”
Update 3: Here’s the Judge’s order.
Good job, that lawyer.
nk (7aed24) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:13 pmWasn’t there probable cause to search the car?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:25 pmLisa Nowak did not receive a “big break,” other than having her case heard by a strong and ethical judge who had the balls to rule against the government in a high-profile case. After all, it is the conservative right wing that is always screaming for judges to just “follow the law” — which has included Miranda for generations now.
What will happen now? My bets are on the pundits lambasting the decisions and crying about how we are soft on crime and favor the criminals. What won’t happen? Any discipline against the foolhardy officers that proceeded with the interrogation without the required admonition and searched the car without the easily obtainable warrant.
nosh (53dd5b) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:26 pmWell — a cop doesn’t need a warrant to search a car so long as he has probable cause.
The problem may be that probable cause was only developed based on some unMirandized admission she made.
I suspect we haven’t heard the last of this yet, I’d like to read some more on the facts if anyone has a link.
WLS (bafbcb) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:31 pmI’m assuming some here, but wouldn’t Collen Shipman’s statements constitute probable cause?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:39 pmPossibly — that’s why I’m interested in knowing more about the facts and the timeline.
WLS (bafbcb) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:42 pmSounds like a judge is telling the police to tune up their stuff before they muff a real big one.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:52 pmAny doubt who was the bravest and the brightest in that interview room?
nk (7aed24) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:56 pmWLS,
I couldn’t find more detail when I wrote this but I’m looking and I will add it when it is available.
UPDATE: Here’s something –
The Judge’s ruling is 24 pages long and it was issued subsequent to a 2-day hearing held several weeks ago on this issue. I don’t think it’s available online, at least not yet. Here’s the best summary I’ve found so far:
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/2/2007 @ 5:25 pmWhat a crock. This woman is a graduate of the US Naval academy, is a pilot and is a Navy Captain, the equivalent of an Army Colonel. She should know when and when not to talk to police.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:10 pmhot horny spacegrrls can come and take me anytime.
assistant devil's advocate (3d4752) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:41 pmWLS
Rarely do I diagree with you – given your background – but in this situation – it was easy for the police to arrest her or detain Nowack – bring her down to the station and get a judges assent to search the car
After all there was very LITTLE evidence that the witness was credible and no physical evidence of a crime at that point
Police way way overreached
EricPWJohnson (695c44) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:59 pmNosh #3,
You may be right about whether or not this was a “big break” but I copied that part of the title from the linked article. I’ll put it in quotes to make that clear.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/2/2007 @ 9:09 pmShoddy police work on the 4th and 6th Amendment issues, and a correct ruling. Basic civil rights stuff.
But not fatal to the case, the prosecution still has plenty of meat to work with, such as the actual pepper spray attack, the wig and trench coat (from the victim’s testimony), the cross country drive and the basic facts of the love triangle that can be established without the evidence in the car. Case goes from a slam dunk to one the prosecution could still maybe win on some counts, even on attempted kidnapping, despite the loss of the evidence of binding devices, weapons and garbage bags and such. Who knows what evidence they have beyond the specific items excluded.
How is it she is currently serving in the Navy, though? I would think her actions would at least get her suspended pending determination through internal military procedures, apart from the progress of the criminal case.
Stace (2ca426) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:00 pmSuspended? “Suspended”? From the navy?
Oh for God sakes. How I wish I wasn’t banned so I could point out how stupid that is.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:04 pmI read the judge’s opinion. I didn’t read the Florida cases he relied on, but those look similar to the federal cases I am familiar with.
I don’t think this ruling will be reversed if the prosecution appeals – it looks like a close case – but I think the judge got it wrong. His litany of “legally impermissible” statements by the cop include things which I think are clearly permissible. (It also contains things which are impermissible.)
The judge correctly cites a totality of the circumstances standard. I might have felt differently if I had seen the testimony, and the opinion doesn’t read like an ideological screed against cops. But I don’t see the circumstances as the same.
I note to DRJ’s comment nine that the judge said that the officer’s statements in response to her lawyer-seeking thoughts (not unequivocal requests) were totally honest and appropriate the first and third times she brought it up, but he had issues with the second time.
It’s a sticky case.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:27 pmHave to agree that this is shoddy police work. She’s obviously unhinged if the reporting is correct, but that doesn’t remove her right to due process. Cops have to play by the rules – they’re there for a reason. If the judge overreached, the proc can turn it on appeal. More likely, it looks like the defense is correct, legally. It might be a coin flip that depends on the appeals process, but the facts look to me like at least this phase goes to the defendant. Not that she’s not nuts, if the facts are correct (in a non-legal sense), nor does one have to wonder how the whole astronaut career was advanced.
fishbane (1f2790) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:45 amNowak is stone cold guilty…..of falling in love with a first class lying prick. Her career is ruined, she will probably lose all benefits, and will be nearly unemployable for the rest of her life. As for her Annapolis education and alleged genius? Even those people fall hopelessly in love and some cannot extricate themselves from what they so desperately want. I am the kind of asshole who has fallen for every kind of woman from hooker to movie star. and nobody knows what I might do in a similar situation.
Let her off. What we really need is a man falling in love with another man. THAT will be interesting. Every news outlet in the country already has the stories ready to go; sort of like the Duke rape case.
Howard Veit (4ba8d4) — 11/3/2007 @ 5:47 amPerhaps the search was illegal because you can only search what you can see without a warrant. I can’t imagine that many of the items the police claim she had with her wouldn’t be in the trunk.
I hope that she gets help, not prosecution. She doesn’t appear to be a danger to anyone else, and Colleen Shipman has voluntarily gone back to Houston, knowing Lisa lives there.
clara Moorman (c36902) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:31 amShe pepper-sprayed the victim wearing a wig and carrying a taser. Do we really need some stupid map from insider her car?
This is still a slam dunk, unless they change venue to Los Angeles.
Alta Bob (c549e9) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:53 amThere was a police department in New York that was caught training its officers to intimidate suspects and lie to them in order to get them to consent to searches or waive their Miranda rights, and I doubt that it’s very much different anywhere else in the country.
We all know that cops deliberately break the rules or indefensibly mess up far more often than we as citizens should accept. Of course criminals know “more” about their rights than cops, the reputation of the police to the criminal element is that they will break the rules to get you, that they are out from the start to break the rules to get you, so you better know your stuff and be ready to fight them on the legal technicalities. Because a lot of the time, enough for it to be a big problem I think, the cops do break the rules.
chaos (aad1e2) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:37 amI can only laugh at those making comments about “shoddy police work.” In hind sight, I’m sure they may have done a few things differently. Most people know their rights, especially a Navy Captain, astronaut & Annapolis graduate. Calling an interview of her a “chess match” is an understatement. I have no problem with convincing a crook to waive their rights to build a better case against them. Give me a break.
Bud Dickman (7cfd24) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:41 amBut I was told that Miranda had almost no effect on the system.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:44 amthis is major tom to ground control
the women tied me up
and now they’re licking chocolate frosting off my pubes
and the ice is set to boil in my cubes…
(said to woman in bar) “howdy ma’am, i’m an astronaut of inner space with a spacesuit built for two!”
everything that happens in the lisa nowak case is readily understandable once you appreciate the one critical premise: there’s a pre-eminent power on the playing field, and that power will get its way no matter what, and its way is this: the protection of nasa, the astronaut corps and the government itself from any further embarrassing disclosure.
@howard veit: i disagree that she’s unemployable. she has a bright future as a professional dom. there are a lot of guys out there, you might be surprised, who are willing to pay hundreds of bucks an hour to receive loving discipline from a stern taskmistress, and her navy captain/former astronaut cachet will command a premium.
assistant devil's advocate (44cbea) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:44 amSo, ada, do you think the fix is in? Is Colleen Shipman going to throw the case for the good of the service? Or will Nowak drive off a bridge before the case comes to trial?
nk (7aed24) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:54 amcolleen shipman is an air force captain who undoubtedly aspires to be a major, then a colonel, then a general, like all air force captains. which course do you think offers her the best chance?
1. nationally known seductress/victim in an incredibly lurid, national enquireresque triangle of unbridled and criminal passions, or
2. trying, as best as possible here, to slip back into the background of public attention, and then the obscurity of public inattention?
i also have a pretty good idea of what her chain of command wants, and know that she’s accustomed to taking direction from it.
assistant devil's advocate (44cbea) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:01 amI think the careers of all three are dead. Even if nobody goes to jail, they’ll not show up on the promotion list as scheduled and take it as a broad hint to go be “space experts” on CNN.
nk (7aed24) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:09 amBut I was told that Miranda had almost no effect on the system.
Heh! A claim that begs the question. In Miranda, the Supreme Court performed a useless act? Of course not. It may have taken the Fifth (and Sixth) Amendment further than the founders intended but it does definitely protect people who number among their other crimes an inability to know when to keep their mouths shut.
I did think the bypassing of the “inevitable discovery” exception was very well done in this case, though.
nk (7aed24) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:20 amNK #27,
Can you elaborate? My reading of the opinion suggests the Judge rejected the inevitable discovery argument because it was based on the detective’s speculation. However, at the early stages, the charge against Nowak was stalking. She was in a car in a strange city. It seems entirely logical to me that a search of her vehicle was in order.
I thought this was the weakest part of the opinion.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:50 amDRJ #28,
I agree with you. I was praising the lawyer.
As a practical matter, the police could have locked her up, traced her car as the detective “speculated”, administratively impounded her car and “inventoried” it. (If they could not get their act together enough to prepare an affidavit and obtain a search warrant based on the information they already had outside her statements.)
nk (7aed24) — 11/3/2007 @ 11:03 amCan’t help but wonder if any of those making the “shoddy police work” comments have ever made an arrest, done an interrogation or even made an arrest themselves?
Retired Cop (7cfd24) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:49 pmRetired Cop, while I appreciate and value all of the work you must have done in your career, including the difficult, dangerous, and necessity of making arrests, after having done so… you thoroughly Mirandize the suspect or bye bye confession and, in this case, evidence.
So, yes, it was shoddy police work.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:58 pmHoward Veit,
I’m sure her husband and children will take comfort in that.
Pablo (99243e) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:10 pmRetired Cop,
I want to be fair so help me see the other side of this situation. I concede it’s possible the court was wrong, or Nowak has a particularly good attorney, or Nowak may simply be a good witness.
But it seems to me that local police know what local judges tolerate. Maybe this was an unusual situation but, except for the fact the defendant is an astronaut, it seems like a routine case with a big disconnect between what the police detective did and what the court wanted him to do.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/3/2007 @ 8:23 pmDRJ,
Most cops get pretty through training on 4th & 5th amendment issues. I doubt the officer set out to get much of the evidence tossed.
Most judicial districts have many judges. In my experience, judges can vary quite a bit in their decisions even though they are constrained by case law. Those laws are always subject to interpretation.
As an officer, you do your job in a manner consistent with your training. What the judges in your judicial district “tolerate” doesn’t come into play as you go about your duties. You act in a manner consistent with your training.
In some respects, this is a very unusual case because of the players involved. By virtue of her education, training & employment, I suspect Nowak has an IQ in what would be typically considered in the genius level. That makes her interrogation anything but usual.
Students of military academies do in fact receive training in regards to constitutional law. As a military officer & pilot, she has received training in the area of resisting interrogations. I strongly suspect her answers were well calculated to achieve exactly the ruling she received in court.
Having the benefit of hindsight & 30 years police experience, much of which was spent as a supervising detective sergeant, there are a few things I would have done differently. Any issues I have with the officers conduct in this case I would call minor training issues but not “shoddy police work.”
It’s not as easy as Andy Sipowitz makes it look on NYPD Blue.
Retired Cop (859d87) — 11/4/2007 @ 7:22 amI was under the impression that phrases like “do I need a lawyer” isn’t actually asking for one, and that cops are under no obligation to say “well sure, we’ll just stop talking”. Only if it’s said “I want a lawyer” or words to that direct affect.
Also, I cn’t figure out if she was actually under arrest when she made her probable cuase-granting statement. If she wasn’t, why would she need to be Mirandized?
Besides, the moment she was arrested, you have “search incident to arrest”.
I actually don’t understand this ruling.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/4/2007 @ 7:30 amScott,
Here is my 2 cents in regards to your comments.
If she is deprived of her freedom & not free to leave, I’d say she was under arrest. Search incident to arrest generally means a search of her person and the immediate area under her control for weapons.
Miranda is not mandatory after an arrest on adults. Of course it is if you are going to interrogate them in regards to their crime.
The fact she was not with her car when first detained, makes the search of the car a bit iffy to me unless she clearly gave consent to search. Warrants are easy to write & obtain. I can only think the officers must have felt Nowak gave legal consent to search & that they were on firm legal ground. Note, seizing evidence in plain view from outside the car would not require a warrant or consent.
Again, I think her answers were well calculated to achieve the decision suppressing her statements & evidence from her car.
Retired Cop (7cfd24) — 11/4/2007 @ 7:53 amCan’t help but wonder if any of those making the “shoddy police work” comments have ever made an arrest, done an interrogation or even made an arrest themselves? — Retired Cop
Close, actually they’ve been arrested.
Alta Bob (c549e9) — 11/4/2007 @ 7:54 amA bipartisan commission was formed in California to examine the criminal justice system to reduce wrongful convictions. Among their top three recommendations — Police should record interrogations. And police should employ reliable eyewitness identification procedures rather than the common suggestive ones. Guess who opposed? Yep, lobbying organizations representing police and district attorneys. And who used the veto? Yep, our cigar-chomping, photo-op loving imbecile of a governor.
Wonderfully simple to pander with judges and candidates each promising to be tougher on crime than the next, so the state ends up spending ten times more per prisoner than per student.
nosh (53dd5b) — 11/4/2007 @ 10:57 amIs it suggestive to ask someone if the the recognize someone being detained? Not a chance? Its equally important to eliminate a person as a suspect. It’s also not practical to tell the police they cant talk to a suspect unless they tape it. Just not practical. The reason he measure was vetoed is because it was written so poorly it was not practical. And Nosh, one of the reasons we in Ca have to spend so much on prisons is because we get everyone else’s trash.
Retired Cop (7cfd24) — 11/4/2007 @ 1:38 pmLisa Nowak is still with the navy and assigned to the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, however, she is working out of her home near Houston writing training manuals.
Diane Fanning (0280b1) — 11/5/2007 @ 7:18 amThe Navy’s position is that they are waiting for the civilian courts to finish their process before considering any action. I suspect she will be quickly eased out of the Navy regardless of the outcoming of the case.
I strongly suspect that the case will not go to trial but a plea bargain will be reached that involves no incarceration.
My book about this story, OUT THERE, was released last week by St. Martin’s Press.