Document: 486 U.S. 675 108 S.Ct. 2093 100 L.Ed.2d 704 ARIZONA, Petitionerv.Ronald William ROBERSON. No. 87-354. Argued March 29, 1988. Decided June 15, Syllabus Edwards v. Arizona, 451 477, 484-485, 101 1880, 1884-1885, 68 378, held that a suspect who has "expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject further interrogation by authorities until been made available him, unless accused himself initiates communication." After being arrested at scene of burglary, and advised arresting officer constitutional rights, as declared in Miranda 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 remain silent have an attorney present during any interrogation, respondent replied he "wanted lawyer before answering questions," which fact was duly reported officer's written report. Three days later, while still custody, different officer, unaware had earlier requested yet provided, him rights interrogated about obtaining incriminating statement concerning crime. In prosecution for offense, Arizona trial court suppressed reliance upon State Supreme Court decision refused distinguish respect re-interrogated unrelated offense after counsel, ruling involved same legally significant Fifth Amendment purposes. The Appeals affirmed suppression. Held: rule applies bar police-initiated following suspect's request context separate investigation. Pp. 680-688. (a) bright-line, prophylactic benefits alike. It protects against inherently compelling pressures custodial suspects feel incapable undergoing such questioning without advice creating presumption subsequent waiver right authorities' behest coercive purely voluntary. Moreover, it provides clear unequivocal guidelines inform prosecutors specificity what they may do conducting courts under circumstances statements obtained are admissible. 680-682. (b) This Court's decisions compel exception postrequest relating Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 96 321, 46 313; Connecticut Barrett, 479 523, 107 828, 93 920; Colorado Spring, 564, 851, 954; Maine Moulton, 474 159, 106 88 481 distinguished. 682-685. (c) nature factual setting this case rule. argument existence investigations itself precludes type badgering led persuasive. no means engaged will be less eager than one inquiry question custody. indicated inability cope requesting surely exacerbate whatever compulsion speak feeling. giving fresh sets warnings necessarily "reassure" denied remained untrammeled. fact, this, three elapsed between unsatisfied separate-offense there serious risk mere repetition would overcome coercion created prolonged Furthermore, uncounseled interests know about, give concerning, does Edwards, since suspect, having can determine how counsel's advice, free facts second investigation, long interrogate initiate communication. Finally, conducted respondent's did cannot justify failure honor request, focuses on state mind police, could discovered simply reading 685-688. Affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post, p. ----. O'CONNOR, took part consideration or case. Bruce M. Ferg, Tucson, Ariz., petitioner. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Washington, D.C., amicus curiae support Robert L. Barrasso, respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 378 (1981), we communication, exchanges, conversations police." asks us craft cases want their initial interrogation. Several years ago considered, rejected, similar argument, stating: 2 "The difference appellant questioned reinterrogated offense. We believe distinction holds legal significance fifth amendment purposes." Routhier, 137 Ariz. 90, 97, 669 P.2d 68, 75 (1983), cert. denied, 464 1073, 104 985, 79 221 (1984). 3 agree conclusion. 4 * On April 16, 1985, just-completed burglary. also See 467-479, 1624-1630, (1966). Respondent questions."1 recorded report incident. due course, convicted 5 19, custody pursuant arrest earlier, burglary occurred 15. That aware assistance earlier. advising 15 statement. explaining ruling, judge relied squarely P.2d, 75, characterizing "clear unequivocal."2 6 suppression order brief 7 "In instant case, continuously from time asserting impermissible questioning. environment never dissipated." App. Pet. Cert. 24. 8 petition review. Id., 25. granted certiorari resolve conflict certain other decisions.3 484 975, 484, 98 482 (1987). now affirm. II 9 A major purpose U.S., 441-442, S.Ct, 1610-1611, "to concrete law enforcement agencies follow." "As stressed numerous occasions, '[o]ne principal advantages' ease clarity its application. Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 430, 3138, 3145, 82 317 (1984); see New York Quarles, [467 649, 662-664, 2626, 81 550 (1984) ] (concurring opinion); Fare Michael C., 442 [707, 718, 99 2560, 61 197 (1979) ]." Moran Burbine, 475 412, 425, 1135, 1143, 89 410 (1986). 10 came corollary § admonition "[i]f individual states wants attorney, must cease present." 474, 1627-1628. instance, concluded Miranda, continues presence taken, heavy burden rests government demonstrate defendant knowingly intelligently waived privilege self-incrimination retained appointed counsel." 475, S.Ct., 1628. "reconfirm[ed] these views and, lend them substance, emphasize[d] inconsistent progeny authorities, reinterrogate if clearly asserted 485, 1885. reinterrogation occur "the Ibid. Thus, protections provide counteract "inherently pressures" "permit full opportunity exercise self-incrimination," 467, 1624, implemented application believes capable then presumed come behest, own instigation, product voluntary choice suspect. As WHITE explained, expressed view competent later insistence make properly viewed skepticism." 110, n. 2, 329, 313 (1975) result). 11 repeatedly emphasized virtues bright-line well Miranda. Jackson, 625, 634, 1404, 1410, 631 (1986); Smith Illinois, 469 91, 98, 105 490, 494, 83 488 (per curiam ); Solem Stumes, 465 638, 646, 1338, 1343, 579 Shea Louisiana, 470 51, 1065, 84 38 (1985); Oregon Bradshaw, 462 1039, 1044, 103 2830, 2834, 77 405 (1983) (plurality opinion) (REHNQUIST, J.). 707, 2568, (1979), explained "relatively rigid requirement accused's . virtue informing gain specificity, alike, thought outweigh burdens imposes requiring trustworthy highly probative evidence even though confession might traditional analysis."4 thus serves providing unequivocal" profession. Surely nothing ambiguous person "is 1884-1885. III 12 Petitioner contends should apply when occurs According petitioner, both our distinction. unpersuaded. 13 points holding 103-104, 326-327 (quoting 479, 1630), asserts cut off questioning, " 'scrupulously honor' "immediately ceas[ing] resum[ing] passage period provision set warnings, restrict[ing] crime interrogation." 106, 327-328. followed precisely claims State. However, Mosley clear, unlike raise unable proceed lawyer's advice. id., 101, 7, 325 7; 329 (WHITE, concurring result), quoted supra, 681. 14 525, 830, 920 (1987), concerned "told officers but 'no problem' talking incident." limited Barrett drawn oral continue him. argues Roberson's similarly limited, investigation made. flawed factually legally. matter according report, stated "he wanted questions."5 law, raised counsel—that considers assistance—does disappear because approached questions wish pose follows, think, decided day Barrett. 577, 859, 954 "a awareness all possible subjects advance relevant determining whether voluntarily, knowingly, privilege." face warning anything said used Spring's willingness answer questions, limiting waiver, felt comfortable enough so attorney. Since "no qualification [the] broad explicit warning" "anything [a suspect] says him," 859 (emphasis original), talk considered equally unqualified. Conversely, unwillingness sufficiently discomfort presumes persist conversation investigation; otherwise states, reason assume way investigation-specific, supra. petitioner raises 161, (1985), Moulton's "Sixth violated admission codefendant, secret informant, indictment meeting two plan defense strategy upcoming trial." involve issue Moulton rejected admissible were seeking information regarding already indicted, separate, inchoate scheme. Following Massiah United States, 377 201, 207, 1199, 1203-1204, 246 (1964), recognized, though, continuing uncharged offenses violate defendant's Sixth counsel. Our recognition however, lends petitioner's context, "statements offenses, developed times, investigators, course wholly independent investigations, treated same." Brief 32. overlooks self-incrimination. former arises formally charged particular facing apparatus geared up prosecute latter protected prophylaxis inherent arise exist regardless number crimes those resulted formal charges. 17 sum, position. IV 18 Petitioner's attempts distinguishing here unavailing. first relies plurality 2834 J.), laid down rule, designed protect badgered manner Ed- wards was." reasons chances quick succession 'undermine will' questioned, constitute 'badger[ing],' minute warrant consideration, truly pursuing investigations." 16. Further, provided disagree contention ibid. Especially custody.6 19 supporting suggests "good wanting new least learn decide interest States Amicus Curiae 11. simple temporarily 6, communication Rhode Island Innis, 446 291, 1682, 64 297 (1980). "further police" initiates, 1885, perfectly valid. 20 attach addition established procedures, procedures turn enable proposes previously memorialized failed examine Whether contemplated concerns need exists.7 department's justified lack diligence officer. Cf. Giglio 150, 154, 92 763, 766, 31 (1972). 21 judgment 22 23 O'CONNOR 24 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 25 majority frames asked "craft exception" (1981). Ante, 677. implication seem, proof falls say preventative served prohibiting asking once chooses waive But command; obligation expansion. justification consistent practical realities suspects' investigations. With respect, I suggest convincing majority's necessary suspects, many instances deprive nationwide network legitimate investigative technique routinely crimes. 26 When most minor name fingerprints checked master files. frequent occurrence apprehended. announced today officials, some city jurisdiction, assist put arrested. 27 deemed inadmissible applying doctrine invoked. (1987); (1983); Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 394, 74 214 (1982). extension unwarranted. 28 charges, submitted Questions ceased while, detectives jail next morning, guard them. silence implicated reversed conviction, expresses available, exchange himself. 29 ultimate concern follow it, knows understands willing them, assured induce waiver. dictate result reached today, dangers insubstantial here. 30 "was effect opinion). Where confined entirely little into submission. "by clear" "police custody." 686. misses point. Unless teams regularly turning danger minimal, insufficient per se Whatever eagerness, commence readvised consents required invokes Consequently, subjected protected. confessions disfavored feared. prohibits resuming warning, more likelihood began. 32 fictitious assert time, suggestion weak. observed invocation effective terminating relate crime, understand invoke again terminate well. Indeed, explanations reinforce comprehension rights. 33 note conduct hardly exemplary; reinitiated gave response, excluded purposes except impeachment. Any sense generated violation carried over taken account reviewing voluntary, therefore respond misconduct. 34 Allowing read ask wishes strikes appropriate balance, freedom unnecessarily disrupting efforts. Balance essential fashions rules themselves stem violations right. Tucker, 417 433, 444, 94 2357, 2363-2364, 41 182 (1974). By contrast Fourth exclusionary operates absent violation, Elstad, 298, 306-307, 1285, 1291-1292, 222 cautious extending it. preference bright lines, line draws far restrictive stake. 35 presume present, although underlying premise seems types people: always lawyer. realistic human opportunity, learns representation. 36 contexts, approach barred elicited criminal informant related charge indicted. careful note, charge. "[T]o exclude pertaining charges attached obtained, pending frustrate public's activities." 180, 489. Similarly, (1975), committing robbery invoked murder, correctly out neither control us; silence, involves nevertheless reflected understanding respected, opportunities unfair restricted, establishment broad-brush assertion automatically applied one. 37 considering extend holding, does, admissible, absolute establishing irrebuttable coercion, known tested each (1966), insure problems addressed substantial degree. Today's serve nor protection suspected respectfully dissent. Tr. (Apr. 3, 1986). "Routhier based versus conversation. Routhier makes unequivocal, finding And resumption strongly answer." 15-16. Dampier, 314 N.C. 292, 333 S.E.2d 230 (1985) (Edwards inapplicable matter); McFadden Commonwealth, 225 Va. 103, 300 924 county crime); Lofton State, 471 So.2d 665 (Fla.App.) (no represented matter, present), review 480 1294 (Fla.1985); Newton, 682 295 (Utah 1984) (same); Cornethan, Wash.App. 231, 684 1355 (alternative holding: representation suffice purposes); cf. Harriman, 434 551 (La.App.) (adopts here, initiated investigation), writ 440 729 (La.1983); ex rel. Espinoza Fairman, 813 F.2d 117, 124-126 (CA7) (same Arizona), 483 1010, 3240, 97 745 Luman 447 428 (Fla.App.1984) Radovsky 296 Md. 386, A.2d 239 Boles Foltz, 816 1132, 1137-1141 (CA6) (Gibson, dissenting) (same; reach issue), 857, 167, 121 Scalf, 708 1540, 1544 (CA10 1983) (knowledge imputed subsequently suspect"); Arceneaux, 425 740 (La.1983) (same). explanation basis "per aspect 719, 2568-2569, this. Fare: perception occupies critical position system unique ability client Because special help preserve becomes enmeshed adversary process, found 'the indispensable system' [384 U.S.], [86 1625]. helps overreaching ensures actually accurately transcribed presentation evidence. 1625-1626]. role plays justice country." 2568-2569. 1986) added); 23; (Oct. 17, a.m.). "respondent's reiterate [the investigation], [that officer] complete doubt made." 10. conclusion surprising, requested, despite infra. "right" absolute; is, conclude reasonable field out, refrain doing violating person's time." 1627-1628, indicate investigating just likely bypass proper inasmuch record discloses five four 23-24, 49 1986); 8-12 p.m.). last

Category: 0