Document: 462 U.S. 1039 103 S.Ct. 2830 77 L.Ed.2d 405 OREGON, Petitionerv.James Edward BRADSHAW. No. 81-1857. Argued March 28, 1983. Decided June 23, Syllabus During the investigation of death a person whose body had been found in his wrecked pickup truck, respondent was questioned at police station, where he advised Miranda rights, and later arrested for furnishing liquor to victim, minor, again rights. Respondent denied involvement asked an attorney. Subsequently, while being transferred from station jail, inquired officer, "Well, what is going happen me now?" The officer answered that did not have talk him said understood. There followed discussion between as taken offense with which would be charged. suggested take polygraph examination, did, after another reading When examiner told believe telling truth, recanted earlier story admitted driving truck question consumed considerable amount alcohol passed out wheel before it left highway. charged first-degree manslaughter, under influence intoxicants, license revoked. His motion suppress statements admitting denied, guilty bench trial. Oregon Court Appeals reversed, holding inquiry made jail "initiate" conversation therefore growing this should excluded evidence Edwards v. Arizona, 451 477, 101 1880, 68 378. Held: judgment case remanded. 54 Or.App. 949, 636 P.2d 1011, reversed Justice REHNQUIST, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR, concluded respondent's Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Pp. 1044-1047. 1 (a) misapprehended test laid down Edwards, held that, right counsel has asserted accused, further interrogation place "unless accused himself initiates communication, exchanges, or conversations police." U.S., 485, S.Ct., 1885. It "initiation" such aiver previously invoked counsel. court erred thinking only satisfies rule, but ex proprio vigore suffices show waiver 1044-1045. 2 (b) Here, asking "initiated" conversation. statement evinced willingness desire generalized about merely necessary arising incidents custodial relationship. Pp.1045-1046 3 (c) Since there no violation rule next whether, light totality circumstances, knowing intelligent present. trial court, based on its first-hand observation witnesses, waiver; reason dispute finding. Pp.1046-1047 4 POWELL two-step analysis unnecessary. In circumstances case, sufficient knowingly intelligently waived Pp.1050-1051. 5 David B. Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Salem, Or., petitioner. 6 Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, respondent. 7 REHNQUIST announced delivered opinion O'CONNOR joined. 8 After James Bradshaw convicted offenses first degree conviction, time custody 378 (1981). We granted certiorari review determination. --- ----, 292, 74 276 (1982). 9 September, 1980, investigating one Lowell Reynolds Tillamook County. Reynolds' appeared passenger vehicle roadway, struck tree embankment, finally came rest side shallow creek. died traumatic injury, coupled asphyxia drowning. death, accompany Rockaway Police Station questioning. 10 Once required 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). then repeated account events evening provided others party house, denying traffic accident apparently killed Reynolds. might met foul play hands assailant whom alleged party. 11 At point, placed arrest Reynolds, A officer's theory how occurred; behind vehicle. involvement, "I do want attorney goes very much further." App. 72. immediately terminated 12 Sometime County Jail, distance some en fifteen miles. Either just before, during, trip Tillamook, saying "You me. You requested I don't you talking unless so because anything say—because—since attorney, know, your own free will." 16. See 951, 1011-1012 concerning help taking examination. agreed willing whatever could clear up matter. 13 day, following signing written those administered. conclusion, truth. story, killed, alcohol, roadway 14 described above Appeals, relying our decision (1981), concluding obtained now conclude misapplied Edwards. 15 defendant voluntarily submitted questioning stated wished discussions continued. day detectives accosted county when refused speak them "he had" talk. subsequent incriminating without present violated secured Fourteenth Amendments United States Constitution. opinion, we stated: "[A]lthough initially may validly waive respond interrogation, see North Carolina Butler, [441 369, 372-376, 99 1755, 1756-1759, 60 286 (1979) ], strongly indicated additional safeguards are asks counsel; hold during valid cannot established showing responded police-initiated even if [the defendant], having expressed deal through counsel, subject authorities until available him, 484-485, 1884-1885 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). 17 Respondent's now?", admittedly prior "subject[ed] authorities." Id., 484, "construe defendant's minutes before. . ." Pet. 13. quoting relevant language "under reasoning enunciated make inadmissible." 18 think This effect prophylactic designed protect badgered officers manner was. recently restated requirement Wyrick Fields, 394, 395, 214 (1982) (per curiam ), suspect can subjected requests must "suspect dialogue 19 But "expressed counsel," initiated reinterrogation follows, burden remains upon prosecution interrogation. footnote opinion: 20 "If, frequently occur course meeting wholly one-sided, likely will say something clearly 'interrogation.' event, whether silence occurred, is, purported including fact police, reopened 486, n. 9, 1885, 21 reaffirmed Term ). 22 Thus, wrong satisfied sufficed inquiries separate, clarity application gained melding together. 23 doubt asking, ordinary dictionary sense word. While desirable build superstructure legal refinements around word context, undoubtedly situations bare either any dialogue. inquiries, request drink water use telephone routine they fairly represent part open more relating directly indirectly investigation. Such statements, relationship, generally used 24 Although ambiguous, investigation; reasonably interpreted That understood apparent reminded "you me," "understood" 11. On these facts rule. 25 "whether 9. As many times determination depends "upon particular surrounding background, experience, conduct accused." 441 374-375, L.Ed. 2d (quoting Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938)). also 482-483, 1883-1884. 26 state and, words "found threats, promises inducements talk, properly within short requesting changed mind impropriety police. voluntary result remain silent." Or.App., 952, P.2d, 1012. 27 conclusions, court's witnesses involved. cause remanded proceedings. 28 ordered. 29 POWELL, concurring judgment. 30 Court's recent resulted disagreement new per se rule.1 My hope afford opportunity clarify confusion. evidenced differing readings Justices MARSHALL their respective opinions, my fully realized. MARSHALL, three who join affirm "properly applied Edwards." Post, 1053. "conclude Ante, 1043. view here, surprising courts differed "it [was] [had been] cell against [improperly] renewed interrogation." 490, 1887 (opinion judgment). "not sure mean[t]." 488, 1886. 31 opinions today reflect ambiguity language, particularly meaning "initiation." reads requiring initiate communication "about matter criminal investigation." 1053 original). however, require "evinc[e] 1045-1046. formulation include "in sense" word, ibid., excluding "inquiries investigation," ibid. 32 Both agree respect. They step analysis, second Zerbst standard requires examination "totality circumstances." Johnston (1938). puts way: 33 "If still establish separate existence Zerbst. 1055, 2. 34 REHNQUIST's observes initiation voluntariness "are together." 1045. 35 bifurcating compelled other cases. focus reopening police—a coercive. significant bearing question, occasion consider customary case.2 An incarcerated person, crime, does silent others, fellow prisoners, guards, law enforcement officers. Jail pr son confinements indictment extend over days weeks, numerous customarily occur, often accompanied collateral circumstances. Rarely conversation, base simplistic spoke first. 36 example, Bradshaw's initiating ("what now?") isolated event. renewal warnings third Only confess. opens 1054, post, 1053, 1055-1056. He states established." Under never gets however waiver—unless thing. illustrated dissenting case. concludes dialogue, satisfy standard. moves viewed entirety, To extent, plurality opinion. 37 concern confound confusion evident views courts, 1, supra, indeed conflicting REHNQUIST.3 widely followed. comports common sense. Fragmenting into novel analysis—if literally—often frustrate justice well sense.4 Courts engage substantive than "who first." reduced this. 38 unanimous agreeing "the [is] prime example special protection standard." 483, 1884. once safeguards, coercive form important uniquely fact, usually benefit hearing assessing weight credibility testimony. below reversed. 39 BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS join, dissenting. 40 Because respectfully dissent. 41 * (1966), recognized "[u]nless adequate protective devices employed dispel compulsion inherent surroundings, truly product choice." 1619. Access essential secure privilege self-incrimination. individual wants cease present." 474, 1628 thus created "rigid accused's invocation all cease." Fare Michael C., 442 707, 719, 2560, 2569, 61 197 (1979). 42 significance premised lawyer's "unique ability client undergoing 2563. WHITE written: 43 "[T]he reasons keep lines chosen decisions indicates instead wishes advice respect thereto. communicate More competent advice, authorities' insistence counsel's presence skepticism." Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 110, 2, 96 321, 329, 46 313 (1975) (concurring result). 44 various submit "additional counsel." invokes coun el available, waiver, "necessary 45 Shortly thereafter, "a normal reaction car, obviously transport destination." 953, 1013 Relying Edwards.1 "initiat[ing] communication" "reopen[ing] authorities," ensure instance authorities. invite qualify otherwise drastically undermine carefully erected setting. 47 identified hardly pose insurmountable obstacle invoking established, reopens lower difficulty identifying situations. See, e.g., McCree Housewright, 689 F.2d 797 (CA8 1982) (defendant knocking door wanted statement); Gordon, 655 478 (CA2 1981) expressing provide information someone else arrested); State Brezee, 66 Haw. 163, 657 1044 (1983) detective come back Payne State, 424 So.2d 722 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) made); People Thomas, 98 Ill.App.3d 852, Ill.Dec. 235, N.E.2d 985 (1982), cert. 456 993, 102 2276, 73 1289 inquiring accomplice's linking crime); Pittman, 210 Neb. 117, N.W.2d 252 (1981) stating "railroaded" codefendants).2 II 48 order constitute demonstrate discuss Cf. ante, am baffled, plurality's asserts "What both If posed Jean-Paul Sartre class philosophy students, "generalized" discussion. plain "desire" find him. stated, query simply 1013.3 facts, fail considered 49 opened flies face basic purpose safeguards. asks, surely responding surroundings. essence loss control one's freedom movement. exercise virtually unfettered accused. allow recommence permit capitalize Yet Miranda's procedural protections adopted precisely "to surroundings." 50 Accordingly, Compare Fields Wyrick, 682 154, 158 (CA8) (Edwards "creat[ed] rule"), rev'd, 459 ); Thierman, 678 1331, 1338 (CA9 (Wallace, J., dissenting) (reading applying rule); Willie, 410 1028 (La.1982) (recognizing McCloskey, 90 N.J. 18, 25, 446 A.2d 1201, 1205 ("Edwards rule"); Giacomazzi 633 218, 226 (Alaska (Rabinowitz, C.J., "Court fashioned Richardson 274 Ark. 473, 477-478, 625 S.W.2d 504, 506-507 (applying circumstances" rather Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 671, 448 175 ("we read prescribe Leuschner Md.App. 497, 433 1195, 1199 create Scott, 626 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) rule). Wilson Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 376, 290 S.E.2d 442, ("[a]ccepting [Edwards ] exclusionary rule," reservation), 580, 940 (1982); Leuschner, Md. App., A.2d, uncertainty Perhaps caused failure recognize element emphasis prosecution's proof cases where—in absence facts—the critical focuses initial proper. undertaken, Fourth cases, draw too refined consistently. Last Ross, 798, 2157, 72 572 "reject precise holding" Robbins California, 453 420, 2841, 69 744 Arkansas Sanders, 753, 2586, 235 824, 2172. "essential provides 'specific guidance recurring situation.' " 826, 2173 Robbins, 435, 2850 (POWELL, judgment)). needed clarification successfully think, STEVENS' Court. today, ead together, reasonable duty—one compelling—to specific guidance, Ross. prefer analytical framework that—except like —would inhibit full rebuking failing distinguish 1044, attacking straw man. undertook distinct waiver. makes regardless do. Having conclusion entirely consistent Indeed, contains lengthy quotations Unless assume portions quotes, attack completely unjustified. judgment, suggests 1047. view, unambiguously 484-486 1885 point today's eight manifestly explicitly refers "prophylactic rule" 1044. id., 1044-1045 (discussing "Edwards rule"). established. dissent concerns purposes Edwards' seems reliance question. response follows. says, 'You will.' 'I can't prevent talking, understand place—you standing here?' agreed. says understand.' testimony indicates, best ambiguous. noted, took advantage commence questioning—a practice squarely odds 1013.

Category: 0