Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-2130 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Robert Paul Dressel, Respondent. Filed May 19, 2009 Reversed and remanded Johnson, Judge Scott County District Court File No. 70-CR-08-11864 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Patrick J. Ciliberto, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Special Assistant County Attorney, Justice Center JC340, 200 Fourth Avenue West, Shakopee, MN 55379 (for appellant) Daniel L. Gerdts, Brink & Gerdts, P.A., 331 Second Avenue South, Suite 110, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for respondent) Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Johnson, Judge. SYLLABUS Statements made to law enforcement officers following a polygraph examination are admissible in a subsequent criminal prosecution so long as the statements were voluntarily given and are admitted into evidence without any reference to the results of the polygraph examination or the fact that the defendant submitted to a polygraph examination.

OPINION JOHNSON, Judge Robert Paul Dressel, Jr., is charged with several offenses arising from an incident involving his three-year-old daughter. The district court granted Dressels motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers after taking a polygraph examination, and the state has challenged the district courts ruling in this pre-trial appeal. We conclude that the district court erred by suppressing Dressels post-polygraph statements on the ground that the statements were made in connection with a polygraph examination. Therefore, we reverse and remand. FACTS On May 1, 2008, Dressel brought his three-year-old daughter to the emergency room at St. Francis Hospital. The emergency room doctor reported that the girls vaginal opening was torn through to her anal opening and that her labia were bruised. Because of the severity of her injuries, the girl was transferred to Childrens Hospital in St. Paul, where an emergency room doctor requested that the Midwest Childrens Resource Center (MCRC) evaluate her for possible sexual abuse. In an examination report, one of the MCRC doctors equated the girls injuries to the type of injuries often experienced by a woman in childbirth. Surgeons at Childrens Hospital later performed surgery to repair the injuries. On May 2, 2008, Shakopee Police Detective Bridget Rettke conducted an investigation into the girls injuries. Detective Rettke traveled to Childrens Hospital, where she met with Dressel, his wife, and a child protection worker. Although the girl

2

was in Dressels care before he brought her to the hospital, Dressel could not explain to Detective Rettke how the girls vaginal opening was torn. He stated that he noticed her injury while wiping her buttocks but that he had not been upset or frustrated with her and that he was "not rough with her." When asked whether he placed his finger in the girls vaginal area, he answered, "I dont think so." Detective Rettke later visited Dressel at his home and asked him to come to the police station for a polygraph examination. Dressel agreed to do so a few days later. On May 6, 2008, Dressel, his wife, and their daughter visited the Shakopee police station for the polygraph examination, which was administered by Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Special Agent Michael Wold. Before the examination began, Agent Wold explained the process to Dressel and told him that he was not required to take the examination. Agent Wold went over a consent form, which stated that Dressel was taking the polygraph examination "voluntarily, without duress, coercion, threats, or promises." Agent Wold also told Dressel that he was free to leave at any time during or after the examination and that he would not be arrested that day. Dressel signed the consent form and submitted to the examination. During the examination, Dressel stated, consistent with his statements at the hospital, that he did not insert his finger or anything else into the girls vagina. After the examination, Dressel waited in the lobby while Agent Wold scored the examination and discussed the results with Detective Rettke. Agent Wold and Detective Rettke then met with Dressel in a conference room to review with him the results of the examination. Agent Wold began the meeting by reiterating that Dressel was free to leave. Detective Rettke showed Dressel that the door

3

was unlocked and reiterated that he would not be arrested that day under any circumstances. Dressel later testified that neither Agent Wold nor Detective Rettke did anything that he viewed as coercive but that he felt trapped in the conference room and that he was not allowed to leave. Agent Wold then told Dressel that he had failed the polygraph examination in a "pretty significant" way. Agent Wold told Dressel that he believed that Dressel had caused his daughters injuries. Dressel at first denied hurting the girl but eventually provided information indicating that he did cause the girls injuries. He explained that he was in the kitchen of his home when his daughter called for help from an upstairs bathroom. Dressel stated that when he arrived upstairs, he found her standing in front of the toilet without pants and underwear and with her buttocks covered in diarrhea. Dressel told Agent Wold and Detective Rettke that this made him "very angry" and that he "just snapped." Dressel stated that he used a moist paper cloth to wipe her bottom and that he did so "very forcefully." Dressel stated that he "jabbed" the girl in her vagina with his fingers

wrapped in the paper cloth, putting as many as four fingers into her vagina in a manner that he described as "very rough" and "very rapidly and very hard." Dressel stated that he felt the skin give way and saw that the paper cloth was covered in blood, at which point he stopped wiping her and wrapped her in a towel. When asked whether he had used any object on the girl, he stated, "It was just my fingers." The post-polygraph interview lasted approximately one-and-one-half hours. gave Dressel a ride to his home. Afterward, Detective Rettke

4

On May 13, 2008, the state charged Dressel with four felonies: criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, in violation of Minn. Stat.

Download A08-2130, State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Robert Paul Dressel, Respondent..pd

Minnesota Law