A judge will decide whether conversations against a former Perrysburg man charged with rape that were recorded by law enforcement officers will be allowed to be used in court proceedings.

Wood County Common Pleas Judge Molly Mack was given a recording of the interview Lake Township Police had with Travis Hilderbrand, 45, after he invoked his right to counsel.

Defense attorney Kati Tharp asked Mack on Friday to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of any statements obtained in violations to her client’s rights.

The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel and the Fifth Amendment includes Miranda rights that guarantee the person may not be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal matter.

The 14th Amendment forbids the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

These amendments imposed a duty on the interrogating officers to both properly inform Hilderbrand of his rights and stop all questioning upon the request for an attorney, Tharp wrote in her motion to suppress.

Hilderbrand was interrogated on Sept. 25 about the alleged offenses and “it is beyond dispute that the interrogation intended to illicit incriminating statements that corroborated the officers’ investigation,” Tharp wrote.

Should a suspect request counsel at any time during the interview, all further questioning must stop until counsel is made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation, she wrote.

During the interrogation, video recordings show Hilderbrand made several statements invoking his right to an attorney, which were acknowledged by officers who temporarily ceased the interrogation.

“Interrogating officers, however, failed to uphold their obligation to uphold the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment protections” with the subsequent questioning six minutes later when officers returned with copies of the arrest warrant, according to the motion.

Interrogation can continue if the suspect initiates the conversation.

“Defendant’s exasperated utterance and reading aloud of the complaint can hardly be interpreted as indicating a desire to cooperate with the investigation,” Tharp wrote. “The statement was nothing more that a reiteration of defendant’s exasperation at his predicament. Thus, no affirmative statement demonstrated a willingness to talk about the alleged offense.”

The conversation continued and Tharp claimed the officer returned to the topic of the charged offense and prompted her client for more information.

Tharp said that any statements obtained by the accused during subsequent questioning regarding the pending charges is inadmissible and must be suppressed.

Hilderbrand, now living in Elmore, was indicted in October for rape and aggravated burglary, both first-degree felonies; unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a third-degree felony; and gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony.

On Sept. 24, he allegedly knocked on the door of a Perrysburg motel and when an 11-year-old girl cracked open the door, he allegedly pushed his way in. The girl was alone and dove under the sheets to cover up as she was wearing only her underwear and a thin shirt. The complaint alleges that Hilderbrand climbed into bed with her then inappropriately touched her.

When the girl’s brother arrived back at the room and found his sister crying, he called police, according to the police report.

Police obtained motel surveillance video that reportedly showed Hilderbrand entering the girl’s room.

Wood County Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Pamela Gross, in the state’s response filed Thursday, wrote that Hilderbrand signed a waiver of his Miranda rights when taken to an interview room at the Wood County Jail.

Soon after the officer and Hilderbrand entered the interrogation room, the officers asked him again if he was sure he wanted to talk without his lawyer being present.

“Yeah, I’ll talk to you without my lawyer being here,” the video of the interrogation showed.

The Lake Township sergeant conducting the interview repeatedly told Hilderbrand he wasn’t going to talk to him if he wanted his attorney.

“And again and again, defendant continued talking voluntarily about the case,” Gross wrote.

The sergeant did not ask any questions during the first two minutes, leaves the room and returns to the door eight minutes later. Hilderbrand asks a question about his charges and the sergeant states they can’t talk if Hilderbrand wants an attorney. The sergeant never reenters the room and indicates he won’t have time to do an interview because of a shift change, according to Gross’ counterarguments.

Hilderbrand continues to question the charges. Eventually, the sergeant asks what trouble Hilderbrand has been in, in the past. At that time, Hilderbrand begins talking about the case for two minutes with no questions from the officer and no request for an attorney.

“The entire exchange clearly shows that defendant is interested in speaking with (the officer) about the case. … Even when defendant asks (the officer) if they can talk when his attorney comes, he immediately continues to question his current charges … and voluntarily gives his version of the incident.”

If the accused makes a statement concerning the right to counsel that is ambiguous or makes no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, Gross wrote.

By asking if they could talk when his attorney comes is not a request for counsel; it is a request to talk later, she wrote.

Hilderbrand continued to talk for 33 minutes.

Gross also included the waiver of rights signed by Hilderbrand and witnessed by the Lake Township sergeant.

Friday’s suppression hearing lasted five minutes.

“The tape speaks for itself,” Tharp said.

Hilderbrand’s pretrial is scheduled for Sept. 12.