What Should I Do?
- Selecting a Winning Lawyer
- Succeeding With Your Lawyer
- Right to a Telephone Call
- Miranda Rights
- Should I Speak With the Police?
- Coping With the Stress of Prosecution
- Recommended Lawyers
- Overview Justice System
- Massachusetts Court System
- Middlesex County Courts
- Cambridge District Court
- Concord District Court
- Framingham District Court
- Lowell Superior & District Courts
- Malden District Court
- Somerville District Court
- Waltham District Court
- Woburn Superior & District Courts
- Common Defenses
- Right to Self-Defense
- The Bill of Rights
- Massachusetts Declaration of Rights
Right to a Telephone Call
Without access to a friend, family or a lawyer, a person detained at a police station is easy prey. Detectives trained in forensic interrogation techniques are fully aware that they greatly improve their chances of securing a suspect’s confession by isolating him. The right to use a telephone to reach family, friends or an attorney, as enshrined in G.L. c. 276, § 33A, prevents the police cutting off an individual from outside resources.
The original version of G.L. c. 276, § 33A obligated the police to inform a detainee “of his right to so use the telephone immediately upon being booked.” The Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the original to require that “. . . due diligence shall be used to inform the arrested person with reasonable promptness” of his right to make a telephone call. Commonwealth vs. Bouchard, 347 Mass. 418, 419-420 (1964). Recognizing that the police had begun to “. . . postpone the right of access to the telephone by delay in booking,” the Legislature amended the statute to require notification upon arrival to prevent the police from frustrating the statute's goal of prompt notice. By adopting the present version, the Legislature demonstrated its resolve to end the police practice of detaining and questioning a suspect at length, and possibly securing his confession, before advising him of his right to contact the world outside. The statutory language, and the legislative intent behind it, are unequivocal: the detainee must be advised of his right to make a telephone call before substantive questioning is initiated.
When the police have refused a defendant use of a telephone, the Supreme Judicial Court has acted decisively. Acknowledging the ability of police to undermine 276, § 33A, the Supreme Judicial Court held in Commonwealth vs. Jones, 362 Mass. 497, 503 (1972) that “. . . in order to make [276, § 33A] an effective piece of legislation, courts should suppress unfavorable evidence gained as a result of denying a defendant the right to use a telephone.”
TOPRelentless
Criminal
Cross-Examination
“Aside from its excerpts of cross-examination, the book offers extremely valuable wisdom regarding overarching trial strategies (e.g., defense counsel demeanor; tone, tenor, and timing; why you should not call defense witnesses; etc.) The wisdom offered is alone extremely ..."
- Amazon.com Review
READ MORE