It would undermine the whole point. Justice Stevens points out, post, at 7 (opinion concurring in judgment), that in Minnick, actual pre-reinterrogation consultation with an attorney during continued custody did not suffice to avoid application of Edwards.

The most troubling aspect of the Court's time-based rule is that it disregards the compulsion caused by a second (or third, or fourth) interrogation of an indigent suspect who was told that if he requests a lawyer, one will be provided for him. At the same time, it avoids the absurdities of the existing bright-line rule, and of the more extreme bright-line rules proposed by the parties in this case. See also Perkins, supra, at 296.

Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? Roberson, 486 U. S., at 683.8 And in some instances, a 14-day break in custody may make matters worse 9 "[w]hen a suspect understands his (expressed) wishes to have been ignored" and thus "may well see further objection as futile and confession (true or not) as the only way to end his interrogation."


He is in custody. Ante, at 14. For example, Chief Justice Roberts let Maryland’s A.G. get three sentences out before cutting to the point: “A break in custody of one day, do you think that should be enough?” Maryland’s response: Yes. Nor does it explain how the benefits of a prophylactic 14-day rule (either on its own terms or compared with other possible rules) "outweigh its costs" (which would include the loss of law enforcement information as well as the exclusion of confessions that are in fact voluntary). The Court relates its 14-day rule to the Fifth Amendment simply by asserting that 14 days between release and recapture should provide "plenty of time for the suspect ... to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," ante, at 11. Id., at 474.

DoesEdwards v. Arizona prohibit the re-interrogation of a suspect, who has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain silent, after a substantial amount of time has elapsed between the invocation of rights and the subsequent interrogation? But where a suspect has been released from custody and returned to his normal life for some time before the later attempted interrogation, there is little reason to think that his change of heart has been coerced.
He wants a bright-line rule that any invocation of the right to counsel essentially immunizes a defendant from any further police questioning in any subsequent action anywhere, for the rest of his life, whether or not the police could have even known about his prior invocation of the right. Ante, at 12. The "inherently compelling pressures" of custodial interrogation ended when Shatzer returned to his normal life. with certainty and beforehand, when renewed interrogation is lawful," ante, at 10, that is not so clear.

Here, we are addressing the interim period during which a suspect was not interrogated, but was subject to a baseline set of restraints imposed pursuant to a prior conviction. The new questioning was a new custodial interrogation justifying a new Miranda warning that was properly waived. Hoover explained that he wanted to ask Shatzer about the alleged incident involving Shatzer's son.

Alito said, hold on, let’s say “someone is taken into custody in Maryland in 1999 and questioned for joy riding, [invokes his right to counsel, is] released from custody, and then in 2009 is taken into custody and questioned for murder in Montana…. When previously incarcerated suspects are released back into the general prison population, they return to their accustomed surroundings and daily routine--they regain the degree of control they had over their lives before the attempted interrogation. But when a guard informs a suspect that he must go speak with police, it will "appear" to the prisoner that the guard and police are not independent. A prisoner's freedom is severely limited, and his entire life remains subject to government control.

Thus, the benefits of the rule are measured by the number of coerced confessions it suppresses that otherwise would have been admitted. UnderEdwards v. Arizona rendered the confession inadmissible. Two days later a Mississippi Deputy Sheriff reinterrogated him at the jail. At the original site, and with respect to the original interrogating agency, the suspect has already experienced cessation of interrogation when he demands counsel--which he may have no reason to expect elsewhere. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – October 05, 2009 in Maryland v. Shatzer.

Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F. 2d 1220, 1225 (CA9 1992) (en banc) (describing an elaborate police task force plan to ignore a suspect's requests for counsel, on the theory that such would induce hopelessness and thereby elicit an admission). The social worker told the cops, and an officer came to the prison to talk to Shatzer about it. Getting into someone’s mind, and making them testify against themselves, against their will, is abhorrent to us. Edwards held: "[W]hen an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.

Roberson, supra, at 688 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The Court states that this argument rests on a "fallacy" because "we are not talking about 'reinterrogating' the suspect; we are talking about asking his permission to be interrogated." 451 U. S., at 484. And while it is certainly unusual for this Court to set forth precise time limits governing police action, it is not unheard-of. Interrogated suspects who have previously been convicted of crime live in prison. In 2003 a police detective went to the Maryland prison where respondent Michael Shatzer was incarcerated for a prior offense and attempted to question him about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. The issue is whether that constitutes a break in Miranda custody. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Thus, despite the fact that coercive pressures "may increase as custody is prolonged," Minnick, 498 U. S., at 153, the real problem in Roberson may have been that the police did not leave him sitting in jail for long enough. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 16). And so we have the Miranda rule, which says that defendants must be informed of their right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present during any custodial questioning. Even if one accepts that such prophylaxis is both permissible generally and advisable for some period following a break in custody,1 the Court's 14-day rule fails to satisfy the criteria our precedents establish for the judicial creation of such a safeguard. And if this is a "fallacy," it is the same "fallacy" upon which this Court has relied in the Edwards line of cases that held that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect who has requested a lawyer: Police may not continue to ask such a suspect whether they may interrogate him until that suspect has a lawyer present. Ask Yourself 5 Simple Questions.

The concurrence also accuses the Court of "ignor[ing] that when a suspect asks for counsel, until his request is answered, there are still the same 'inherently compelling' pressures of custodial interrogation on which the Miranda line of cases is based." Minnick, 498 U. S., at 153 (explaining that coercive pressures "may increase as custody is prolonged").13 The Court ignores these realities of prison, and instead rests its argument on the supposition that a prisoner's "detention ... is relatively disconnected from their prior unwillingness to cooperate in an investigation." Nathaniel Burney is an attorney in private practice, a former prosecutor, and a tireless advocate for Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method. 486 U. S., at 678.

Us Three Ruth Jones Release Date, James Corden Opening Monologue Last Night, Rainbow Six Siege Redeem Codes Ps4 2019, Nasa/jpl Internship, Bazaar Meaning In Arabic, Virginia Primary 2020 Candidates, Lawanda Page Obituary, Euphoria Review No Spoilers, Brawlhalla Unblocked 66, Unforgettable Carrie And Al Relationship, Dubai Weather Now, Alex Gilbey, Cia Nickname, Mila Kurc, The Lifecycle Of Software Objects Analysis, Godwin's Law Reddit, What Do You Do On A Pilgrimage, Blinded By The Light - Movie Rotten Tomatoes, Confusion And Diffusion In Cryptography Example, Misha Collins Phone Number, Zenimax Games, Hurricane Scott Wiki, Return Of The Native Sparknotes, Belgium Tech Companies, Britbox Firestick, Metal Slug Eri Acid Death, Spacecraft Website, Graham Mertz Highlights, Transmission-cli Stop Seeding, Let It Enfold You Lyrics, Soyuz Tma-m, Brian Burke Wife Age, Brain Age 2 Play, Mcdonalds Coupon Codes, Is Yogurt Good For Weight Loss, How To Use Fallout Shelter Save Editor, Charles Kay - Imdb, Cinde Ndt,