Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Criminal Procedure
Criminal ProcedureMirandaEdwards right to counselcustodial interrogationFifth AmendmentMirandaEdwards v. Arizonaright to counsel
Facts
Respondent was arrested on April 16, 1985, for a burglary and, after receiving Miranda warnings, stated that he wanted a lawyer before answering any questions. That request was recorded in a written police report, and respondent remained in custody. Three days later, a different officer, unaware of the earlier request, gave fresh Miranda warnings and interrogated respondent about a different burglary that had occurred on April 15. Respondent made an incriminating statement about the April 15 burglary, and the trial court suppressed it.
Issue
When a suspect in continuous custody has invoked the Fifth Amendment-based Miranda right to counsel, may police later initiate interrogation about a separate, unrelated offense before counsel has been made available? Does the answer change if the second interrogating officer was unaware of the earlier request for counsel?
Rule
Once a suspect in custody has clearly requested counsel, he is not subject to further police-initiated interrogation until counsel has been made available, unless the suspect himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. This Edwards protection applies even when the later interrogation concerns a different, unrelated offense, and it is not defeated by the interrogating officer's lack of knowledge of the prior request.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Dallas, police arrested Nina Flores for suspected check fraud. After receiving Miranda warnings, Nina said, "I want a lawyer before I answer any questions," and she was booked into the county jail. Two days later, while she remained in continuous custody and no lawyer had been provided, a narcotics detective gave fresh Miranda warnings and questioned her about an unrelated meth distribution investigation; Nina confessed.
Is Nina's confession about the drug investigation admissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief?
Explanation. The statement is inadmissible. Under the majority opinion, once a suspect in custody clearly requests counsel, all police-initiated custodial interrogation must cease until counsel has been made available, unless the suspect initiates further communication. That prohibition is not offense-specific; it applies even when later questioning concerns a separate, unrelated crime. Fresh Miranda warnings do not remove the Edwards presumption while the suspect remains in continuous custody without counsel.