Opinion ID: 1752946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Request for attorney

Text: Mr. Higgins does not contend that he asked to be provided with an attorney. His version of what was said does not differ materially from that of Deputy Hopper. The issue becomes whether the reference to an attorney in his question Do you think I need an attorney? was sufficient to require that the interview cease in accordance with the requirement of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and our case of Findley v. State, 300 Ark. 265, 778 S.W.2d 624 (1989), which applies the rule of the Edwards case. We have not previously dealt with a situation quite like this one, but we have discussed equivocal references by accused persons to the need for counsel at the interrogation stage. In Day v. State, 306 Ark. 520, 816 S.W.2d 852 (1991), Mr. Day had completed a statement and then said to one officer, Well, before I sign anything, I probably better talk to a lawyer. Another officer, knowing of the request for counsel, then read the Miranda warnings and had Mr. Day execute a second statement of rights form, after which he told Mr. Day he knew of his request for counsel and asked whether he wanted to be put in touch with an attorney at that point. Mr. Day then said he had not meant he wanted counsel except for the trial. We concluded the request had been equivocal and that, in any event, the questioning by the second officer was not improper because it had been of the narrow sort designed only to clarify the accused's desire for counsel. In Hendrickson v. State, 285 Ark. 462, 688 S.W.2d 295 (1985), we reversed a conviction because questioning had continued after an accused had asked for her lawyer by name. In the opinion we noted the three approaches the courts have taken to an equivocal statement which might or might not be construed to amount to a request for counsel during custodial interrogation. First is the narrow questions permitted approach we used in the Day case. Second is the approach which requires all questions to cease regardless of the ambiguity or equivocation in the reference by the accused to a need for counsel. The third approach establishes a threshold beyond which a reference must go before it becomes a request necessitating the cessation of questioning in accordance with Edwards v. Arizona, supra . Other states have confronted the problem. The holdings in some cases involving similar circumstances have been largely to the effect that the obligation to cease the interview does not arise unless there has been a clear invocation of the right to counsel. See, e.g., State v. Moorman, 154 Ariz. 578, 744 P.2d 679 (1979); Commonwealth v. Pennellatore, 392 Mass. 382, 467 N.E.2d 820 (1984); State v. Campbell, 367 N.W.2d 454 (Minn.1985). We have not found a situation just like this one in any other case. In the cases cited above, the authorities questioning the accused have, when confronted with an equivocal reference to counsel, either stopped the interrogation or they or the accused have in some manner clarified the situation. In this case, we have only Deputy Hopper's response to the reference which did not attempt to clarify whether Mr. Higgins wanted an attorney for the interrogation. All of the cited cases are about the Fifth Amendment right to counsel as explained in Miranda v. Arizona, supra . The United States Supreme Court has recently made it very clear that the Fifth Amendment and the elaboration of it in the Edwards case do not require an interrogation to cease when the reference to the need for an attorney by an accused is ambiguous. The Supreme Court has clearly adopted the threshold approach we described in Hendrickson v. State, supra . In Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362, decided June 24, 1994, the facts were that a sailor who had been read his rights by naval personnel investigating a murder said Maybe I should talk to a lawyer. When asked if he were requesting a lawyer, he said he was not, and the interview continued, resulting in an inculpatory statement. The latter fact makes the Davis case like those cited above where law enforcement officers did not let the ambiguous reference just drop, but sought to clarify it. That is, of course, different from the facts now before us, but the language of the opinion about the requirement found in the Edwards case is revealing and helpful. Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney. McNeil v. Wisconsin [501 U.S. 171, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991)]. But if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require cessation of questioning.       The Edwards rule ... provides a bright line that can be applied by officers in the real world of investigation and interrogation without unduly hampering the gathering of information. But if we were to require questioning to cease if a suspect makes a statement that might be a request for an attorney, this clarity and ease of application would be lost. Police officers would be forced to make difficult judgment calls about whether the suspect in fact wants a lawyer even though he hasn't said so, with the threat of suppression if they guess wrong. We therefore hold that, after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney. Thus we now have it on clear authority that an ambiguous reference to an attorney by a suspect after hearing his Miranda rights read does not require that the interrogation cease. Mr. Higgins' reference to an attorney in this case was surely ambiguous and hardly amounted to the sort of direct request required to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. While we cannot say for certain how the Supreme Court would have decided the case now before us, the language of the opinion in the Davis case leads us to suspect it would affirm on this point, thus we do so.