Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

North Carolina v. Butler

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMiranda waiverCustodial interrogationRight to counselMirandawaiverright to counselcustodial interrogation

Facts

After Butler was arrested by FBI agents on a North Carolina fugitive warrant, Agent Martinez testified that Butler was fully advised of his Miranda rights. At the FBI office, the agents determined that Butler had an 11th grade education and was literate, gave him an Advice of Rights form, and Butler read it and said he understood his rights. Butler refused to sign the waiver portion of the form but stated, "I will talk to you but I am not signing any form," and then made inculpatory statements. He did not request counsel, say anything when advised of his right to a lawyer, or attempt to terminate the questioning.

Issue

Does Miranda require that a suspect under custodial interrogation explicitly waive the right to counsel before any statement may be admitted, or may waiver be found without an express written or oral waiver? More specifically, does a refusal to sign a waiver form automatically preclude a finding of waiver?

Rule

Miranda does not impose a per se rule requiring an express written or oral waiver of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. Mere silence is not enough, and courts must presume no waiver, with the prosecution bearing a heavy burden; however, waiver may in at least some cases be clearly inferred from the suspect's actions and words, considering whether the suspect in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in Miranda.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, detectives arrested Lena Ortiz on burglary charges and brought her to a precinct interview room. After reading her Miranda rights from a card, they asked whether she understood, and Lena said yes; when presented with a waiver form, she said, "I'm not signing paperwork, but I'll tell you what happened," and then answered questions for 20 minutes without asking for a lawyer or trying to stop the interview.

If Lena moves to suppress her statements solely because she never expressly waived counsel in writing or orally, how should the court rule under the federal constitutional rule described here?

Explanation. The governing rule rejects a per se requirement of an express written or oral waiver. A refusal to sign does not automatically preclude waiver. The proper question is whether the suspect knowingly and voluntarily waived Miranda rights, which may in some cases be clearly inferred from the suspect's words and actions—here, acknowledging understanding and saying she would talk.