Document: 423 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 321 46 L.Ed.2d 313 State of MICHIGAN, Petitioner,v.Richard Bert MOSLEY. No. 74-653. Argued Oct. 6, 1975. Decided Dec. 9, Syllabus Respondent, who had been arrested in connection with certain robberies and advised, accordance Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, that he was not obliged to answer any questions could remain silent if wished, having made oral written acknowledgment the warnings, declined discuss robberies, whereupon detective ceased interrogation. More than two hours later, after giving another questioned respondent solely about an unrelated murder. Respondent inculpatory statement, which later used his trial for murder resulted conviction. The appellate court reversed on ground mandated a cessation all interrogation first detective's questions. Held: admission evidence respondent's incriminating statement did violate principles. Respondent's right cut off questioning scrupulously honored, police immediately robbery refusal commenced only significant time lapse fresh set warnings given respondent. Westover United States, distinguished. Pp. 99-107. 51 Mich.App. 105, 214 N.W.2d 564, vacated remanded. Thomas Khalil, Detroit, Mich., petitioner. Carl Ziemba, Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 respondent, Richard Mosley, early afternoon April 8, 1971, recently occurred at Blue Goose Bar White Tower Restaurant city's lower east side. arresting officer, Detective James Cowie Armed Robbery Section Detroit Police Department, acting tip implicating Mosley three other men robberies.1 After effecting arrest, brought Robbery, Breaking Entering Bureau located fourth floor departmental headquarters building. officer advised rights under this Court's decision him read sign department's constitutional notification certificate. filling out necessary arrest papers, began Restaurant. When said want promptly completion papers together took approximately 20 minutes. At no during indicate desire consult lawyer, there is claim procedures followed point fully comply strictures opinion. then taken ninth-floor cell block. 2 Shortly 6 p. m., Hill Department Homicide from block fifth-floor office fatal shooting man named Leroy Williams. Williams killed January holdup attempt outside 101 Ranch Detroit. charge or interrogated it by Cowie.2 Before homicide, carefully "Miranda rights." form both silently aloud, explained form. denied involvement murder, but told Anthony Smith confessed participating slaying as "shooter," himself homicide.3 lasted 15 minutes, its course ask lawyer homicide. In short, Hill's standing alone, opinion.4 3 subsequently charged one-count information first-degree moved suppress number grounds, among them doctrine case constitutionally impermissible question robberies.5 motion evidentiary hearing, introduced against trial. jury convicted imposed mandatory sentence life imprisonment. 4 On appeal Michigan Court Appeals, renewed previous objections use evidence. judgment conviction, holding per se violation doctrine. Accordingly, without reaching Mosley's contentions, remanded new instructions be suppressed 564. further Supreme Court, 392 Mich. 764, filed petition certiorari here. We granted writ because important presented. 419 1119, 95 801, 42 819. 5 promulgated safeguards protect there-delineated persons subjected custodial sum, held unless law enforcement officers give specified before person custody,6 follow subsequent interrogation, custody cannot over objection admitted defendant trial, even though may fact wholly voluntary. See Tucker, 417 433, 443, 94 2357, 2363, 41 182. Neither party present challenges continuing validity decision, so-called guidelines established what person's privilege compulsory self-incrimination. issue case, rather, whether conduct led "guidelines," so render inadmissible Resolution turns almost entirely interpretation single passage opinion, upon relied finding Miranda: 7 "Once have given, procedure clear. If individual indicates manner, prior questioning, wishes silent, must cease. has shown intends exercise Fifth Amendment privilege; invokes product compulsion, subtle otherwise. Without setting in-custody operates overcome free choice producing once invoked." U.S., 473-474, S.Ct., 1627.7 8 This states "the cease" when "he silent." It does state circumstances, any, resumption permissible.8 literally mean invoked "right silence" can never again place subject. Another possible construction would characterize "any privilege" compulsion" therefore mandate exclusion evidence, were volunteered whatever. Or interpreted require immediate permit momentary respite. 9 evident these literal interpretations lead absurd unintended results. To continuation clearly frustrate purposes allowing repeated rounds undermine will being questioned. extreme, blanket prohibition taking voluntary statements permanent immunity regardless transform into irrational obstacles legitimate investigative activity, deprive suspects opportunity make informed intelligent assessments their interests. Clearly, therefore, neither nor sensibly create proscription indefinite duration subject, indicated silent.9 10 A reasonable faithful rest intention adopt "fully effective means . notify silence assure honored ." 479, 1630. critical safeguard identified questioning." Id., 474, 1627. Through option terminate control occurs, subjects discussed, requirement authorities respect counteracts coercive pressures setting. conclude admissibility obtained decided depends questioning" "scrupulously honored."10 11 review circumstances leading confession reveals respected case. initial obligation wished. He orally acknowledged understood signed printed notification-of-rights stated try either resume way persuade reconsider position. interval more hours, location full complete outset second thus reminded fair options. undercut Cowie's inquiries. inquire robbery, instead focused exclusively crime different nature occurrence Cowie. Although clear record how much knew earlier homicide quite consistent robberies.11 12 where failed honor refusing discontinue request persisting efforts wear down resistance change mind. contrast such practices, here resumed period provision restricted subject 13 Appeals viewed factually similar companion Miranda. But controlling facts cases are strikingly different. 14 Westover, petitioner Kansas City 9:45 m. station. advisory kind night throughout next morning various local robberies. noon, FBI agents over, gave proceeded California bank crimes. petitioner's heels prolonged continued preliminary kind. found federal beneficiaries pressure applied interrogation" belated "not sufficient protect" view came end process." 496-497, 1639. Here, contrast, warnings" very each brief suspended beginning statement. cardinal failure whatever embarking intense simply mistaken, believing permitted" decision. Mich.App., 108, N.W.2d, 566. For reasons, we principles Arizona. vacated, proceedings inconsistent 17 ordered. 18 Judgment 19 WHITE, concurring. I concur result majority's reasoning. However, appears me effort limited majority implied some confessions they waiver defendant's rights. seems say within unspecified assertion always inadmissible, following, example, disclosure piece bearing thereafter. Indeed, ante, 102, characterizes "absurd" contrary rule. disagree. do think conclusion compelled 694 (1966), suspect final analysis voluntariness standard judge properly defendant. should now. 21 holds creates inherent compulsion incriminate response questions, testimonial self-incrimination "knowingly intelligently waived." 471, 475, 1626, 1628. also deemed knowing him, inter alia, threshold exercise." 468, 1624. am convinced required States Constitution decided. least support proposition waived expressly existence. E. g., Carnley Cochran, 369 506, 82 884, 70 (1962); Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 89 1709, 23 238 (1969); Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 11, 32(a)(2). There little common sense ineffective voluntarily made. exactly contrary, e. Tollett Henderson, 411 258, 93 36 235 (1973); Brady 397 742, 90 1463, 25 747 (1970); McMann Richardson, 759, 1441, 763 Parker North Carolina, 790, 1458, 785 (1970). Unless incompetent, past rejected paternalistic rule protecting decisions own criminal Faretta California, 422 806, 2525, 45 562 (1975). "imprison privileges,"1 Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 280, 63 236, 242, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942), disregard " 'that lifeblood law,' supra, 834, 2541. reluctant stands proposition. 22 language compels basic rationale. As points out, Miranda, 1627, requiring cease tells us nothing soon resume. showed paragraph, moreover, wanted right, so. "(i)f wants attorney, until attorney present." Ibid.2 decide unaided counsel assert situation situation, said: "If continues presence taken, heavy burden rests government demonstrate knowingly retained appointed counsel." Apparently, although placing government, intended tested normal standards. event, insofar might magical following silence," reject waivers disapproved otherwise uniformly legal justifying implication inevitably says avoid "undermining" questioned." Yet, surely "undermining will" considered involuntary waiver. Thus, order achieve purpose, exclude waivers. others factfinding process highly probative reason all. "repeated rounds" privilege, worried about, would, course, count heavily determination particularly (such communicated accused incident inquired about) appeared questioning. reason, however, rob now state. 24 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. focuses correct (1966) (footnote omitted): 26 27 eroding rights, begun Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 (1971), today's renew exercised provided suspect's honored." Today's distortion Miranda's principals yet stop erosion and, suppose, ultimate overruling necessitated inherently Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 84 1758, 977 (1964), "we sought protective device dispel compelling atmosphere interrogation." 465, 1623. "concluded proper suspected contains work individual's resist compel speak freely." 467, 1624.1 promised "inherently pressures" prophylactic fashioned supplement traditional preceded adequate substitute 468-469, 1624-1625, Satisfaction rule, necessary, sufficient, confession. Certiorari "to concrete agencies courts follow," id., 441-442, 1611, is, clear, objective standards vagaries test. 29 task confronts satisfy approach establishing "concrete guidelines" governing who, while custody, unequivocally "indicate(d) .." today recognize, cost assuring procedural tests, independent actual inquiry voluntariness, excluded. Ante, ——. Thus consideration confronting excluded, approved certainty influence detention. fail provide assurance. 30 observed : "Whatever testimony accused, lengthy incommunicado incarceration strong validly waive eventually finally forced notion relinquishment privilege." 476, 1629. And, portion finds observed, virtually irrebuttable presumption see 474 n. 44, strongest where, suspect, initially determined confess crime. Only rebutted. 31 formulating safeguard, skirts problem thereby fails join dictates teaches itself part invariably suspect. That teaching embodied silent. uncritically abandons teaching. assumes, language, honoring" preserves efficaciousness future despite detained time. 32 Observing "(t)hrough questioning," concludes "that 'right questioning' 'scrupulously honored.' 103, 104. honoring exercises meaningful remains unfettered. formulation assumes matter here: detention acts overbear will, irrespective (and them), rendering inconsequential enough conclusorily "(t)he inquiries." 105. Under presumptively consequence overbearing played central roles. 33 agree read, one hand, impose absolute ban "at subject," respite," ibid. justify adoption vague falls somewhere between those extremes, flat unambiguous terms requires "cease" terms, uncompromising preclude fashioning govern Those must, necessarily sensitive reality "(a)s practical matter, isolated station well greater official investigations, often impartial observers guard intimidation trickery." 461, 1621 omitted). 34 easy task. Adequate readily available. arraigned judicial "without unnecessary delay,"2 certainly burdensome requirement. Alternatively, await appointment arrival acceptable satisfied precondition resumption.3 conform (against self-incrimination)." 466, expediently bypasses alternative search permissible.4 35 suggests appropriate alternative. categorical cease." observed: present, permissible. absence overbearing, fairly construed statements." 1627 (emphasis added). 37 circumstance suggested resumed, then, permissible still easily dissipated.5 38 These rejection "per duration," subscribe. empties principle, plainly encourages asked continue station's responds questioning.6 contrasts sharply acceptance years ago "(i)n techniques surroundings produce situation." Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 247, 2041, 2058, 854 (1973). signals premise. 39 My concern treatment extends appear "an murder," ante 104, patently unsuccessful. anonymous received Cowie, conceded sole basis 97 1, embraced covered robbery-murder Williams, 98 2, Mosley. apprehended, involved addition tried examine treats location," Yet merely same building, 97-98.7 40 find troubling robbery-murder, 104-106. does. testified '(a)nything robberies,' 105 11. background implicated incident. Read light, reasonably inferred "(a)nything" include episode, since episode. this, reading articulates today. "Anything robberies" comprehending robbery. interpret alleged hardly honors "scrupulously" light law, observe precluded adhering higher law. Each power practices Federal Constitution. Oregon Hass, 420 714, 719, 1215, 1219, 43 570 (1975);8 Lego Twomey, 404 477, 489, 92 619, 626, 618 (1972); Cooper 386 58, 62, 788, 791, 730 (1967). Commonwealth Ware, 446 Pa. 52, 284 A.2d 700 (1971). Pennsylvania adopted aspect March 20, 1972, Commonwealth's 405 987, 1254, 453. month error grant apparent, "it appearing below ground." 406 910, 1606, 821 (1972). Understandably, legislatures are, matters increasingly according protections depreciated See, Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 492 P.2d 657 (1971) (rejecting (1971)); People Beavers, 393 554, 227 511 (1975), cert. denied, 878, 152, 111 White, 745, 1122, 453 Johnson, 68 N.J. 349, 346 66 (1975) (1973)); Campana, 455 622, 314 854, 969, 3172, 1139 (1974) (adopting "same transaction occurrence" Double Jeopardy Clause). note Michigan's counterpart Mich.Const., Art. § 17; supra. supplied caller original had, During cross-examination "denied physical participation robbery." 5, infra. violated contended illegal delay, through trickery promises leniency. argued independently combination, suppression inform appointed." 444, 1612. involve asks detailed follows: present. time, confer obtain speaking police, "This mean, suggested, 'station house lawyer' times advise prisoners. propose interrogate known entitled afford one, investigation field carried refrain doing violating long time." footnote: footnote relevant compliance dictates. instructive vast presented concluded Whealon, 490 F.2d 629, 630, 635 (C.A.6 1974); Collins, 462 792, 802 (C.A.2 1972) (en banc); Jennings 391 512, 515-516 (C.A.5 1968); Choice, F.Supp. 460, 466-467 (E.D.Pa.1975); McIntyre 329 13-14 (E.D.N.Y.1971); Naranjo, 181 Colo. 273, 277-278, 509 1235, 1237 Pittman, 55 Ill.2d 39, 54-56, 302 N.E.2d 7, 16-17 McClelland, Iowa, 164 189, 192-196 (Iowa 1969); Law, Kan. 647-649, 522 320, 324-325 (1974); Conway State, Md.App. 400, 405-411, 256 178, 181-184 O'Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 70-71, 216 822, 829 Godfrey, 182 Neb. 451, 454-457, 155 438, 440-442 (1968); Gary, N.Y.2d 68, 69-70, 334 N.Y.S.2d 883, 884-885, 286 263, 264 Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 296-297, 158 S.E.2d 511, 520 Grandison, 449 231, 233-234, 296 730, 731 Robinson, S.D. 375, 378, 209 374, 375-377 429 S.W.2d 481, 486-487 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Estrada, Wis.2d 486-488, 217 359, 365-366 (1974). Fioritto, Cal.2d 717-720, Cal.Rptr. 817, 818-820, 441 625, 626-628 (1968) (permitting initiate questioning). Citation above imply merits particular dissenting asserts Post, 116-117. requirement, distinguished triggered directed present" attorney." hearing concerning scope questions: "A. involved. "Q. answer? Yes. Anything robberies." dispute testimony. Not offer somewhat version briefs submitted accepted account correct, factual argument discussed description events. cause injury. nonetheless know true ability explain supply alibi release. Similarly, wish (1) unusually (2) cooperation apprehension conviction recovery property redound benefit reduced charge. Certainly interested information, communication closely silence." Where requested chosen regarding conversations authorities, deprived temporarily expression reasons keep lines open advice thereto. communicate attorney. point, expressed competent deal advice, authorities' insistence counsel's skepticism. further: "Unless devices employed surroundings, truly choice." 458, 1619. Mich.Comp.Laws §§ 764.13, 764.26 Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.871(1), 28.885 available across street 2:15 4:30 App. 13. minutes 14. simple state-law totally odds honored" addition, break substantial indeed suggest arraignment eliminate apparently proscribes resuming 7. "Mosley questions." 102 8. applicable Even did, placed stiffer limits Moreover, makes difference specifically address contemplates situation. "directed 'the present' '(i)f attorney.' 104 (quoting 1627). inaccurate. quoted actually reads: permitting unreasonably limitation length detain arraignment, cf. Gerstein Pugh, 54 (1975); Mallory 354 449, 77 1356, 1479 (1957); McNabb 318 332, 608, 819 (1943), 494, 1638, turned police. "Although legally distinct crimes different, impact continuous "We warnings. authority, removed adequately them. conducted surroundings. obtaining alone officer. Surely Santobello 257, 262, 495, 498, 427 sessions my Brother Marshall correctly 728, 1223 (dissenting), clarify relying disposition Hass cited authority; based Tr. Oral Arg. 44.

Category: 0