Youngstown Daily Legal News

Inmate who crafted homemade weapons loses his appeal

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 27, 2014

The 12th District Court of Appeals released an opinion recently rejecting an inmate’s claims that his statements during an administrative hearing should have been suppressed.

Phillip Platt appealed from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas decision denying his motion to suppress and argued that his statements could not be used in court because he was not read his Miranda rights.

The facts of the case stated that Platt is an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution serving a sentence for murder.

In May 2016, authorities found two shanks, seven-inch pieces of metal sharpened to a point, in Platt’s cell.

He was subsequently charged with an institutional rule violation for possessing or manufacturing a weapon and an administrative hearing was held before a hearing officer.

Another hearing was held a few days later before the Rules Infraction Board.

During both proceedings, Platt admitted that the shanks were his and pleaded guilty to the rules infraction.

The state also conducted a criminal investigation about the shanks and Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Chad Smith went to the prison to interview Platt.

Before the interview began, Platt again admitted that the shanks were his.

Smith then advised him about his Miranda rights and Platt requested an attorney.

He was later indicted for possession of a deadly weapon while under detention and he moved to suppress the statements he made during the administrative hearings and to Smith.

The trial court denied that motion, found him guilty of the violation and sentenced him to an additional six years in prison.

Upon review, the three-judge appellate panel noted that Platt was taken to both hearings and the interview in restraints.

He wore handcuffs, a belly band and ankle restraints on each trip and was escorted to each location.

Prison officials explained that Platt had been in isolation for about six months at the time of the hearings and institutional rules required that he be restrained and escorted at all times, “whether he’s going to the shower, recreational or what.”

Members of both hearings also testified that the hearings lasted only a couple minutes and that Platt quickly admitted on both occasions that his “cellie knew nothing about the shanks and the shanks were his.”

Similarly, Smith said he explained to Platt why he was there and asked if he understood.

Smith said Platt responded “as one continuous response, ... yes, its for the knives that were found in my cell, and (Platt) continued and went on and said that my cellie didn’t know about it, those were mine.”

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that appellant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during the administrative hearings conducted on May 8 and May 13, 2013 or during the June 11 2013 interview,” Judge Michael Powell wrote for the court.

The judges held that although Platt was escorted and restrained, that was part of institutional policy.

“Appellant would have therefore been escorted and restrained regardless of the purpose of the removal from his cell. At the time of the hearings and interview, appellant had been in isolation for six months and was certainly accustomed to such restraints,” Judge Powell stated.

The panel further explained that Platt never expressed a desire not to talk to law enforcement but instead quickly volunteered information about the shanks in order to exculpate his cell mate.

Ruling that no coercion was used and Platt willingly volunteered the information, the judges affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny Platt’s motion to suppress.

Presiding Judge Stephen Powell and Judge Robin Piper joined Judge Powell in overruling Platt’s assignment of error.

The case is cited State v. Platt, 2014-Ohio-3450.

[Back]