Opinion ID: 2496
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Law Applicable to Determining If Plugh Invoked His Fifth Amendment Rights

Text: In this case, the agents presented Plugh with a waiver form and no one disputes that Plugh refused to sign it. What then are the implications of Plugh's refusal? In United States v. Quiroz , this Court addressed whether refusal to sign a waiver form may constitute an invocation of a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights. 13 F.3d 505 (2d Cir.1993). There, the custodial officer asked [suspect] Quiroz to read the advice-of-rights forms, asked whether he understood the forms, and simply asked Quiroz to sign them. [7] 13 F.3d at 512. Quiroz declined to sign until he had spoken to an attorney. Id. at 509. Finding that the statement was a direct and complete response to the precise question Quiroz had been asked, the Court determined that the prophylactic requirement that custodial officers refrain from questioning was triggered at that moment. Id. at 512. The Quiroz Court had no doubt whatever that, had Quiroz signed, [the custodial officer] would have viewed that act as a complete waiver of Quiroz's rights. We can see no good reason not to treat Quiroz's refusal to sign forms in the absence of counsel as a refusal that was coextensive with the waiver [the custodial officer] sought. In sum, we do not view Quiroz's refusal to sign the forms as a limited request for counsel, any more than [the custodial officer's] request to sign the forms was a request for a limited waiver. Since we do not view Quiroz's statement as narrower than the [custodial officer's] request, we see no ambiguity. Id. Quiroz instructs us, therefore, that  absent a suspect's prior or simultaneous affirmative announcements of his willingness to speak, Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 529, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987)  when a custodial officer specifically asks a suspect if he will waive his rights by signing a form and does so in such a way that the accused would interpret a refusal to sign as a negative answer, the suspect has taken sufficient action to trigger the Edwards prophylactic rule and the officers must refrain from questioning the suspect. [8]