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

Heading: Did Plugh Invoke His Fifth Amendment Rights?

Text: Under Quiroz, the question is whether Plugh's actions-a refusal to sign the advice-of-rights form in light of the agent's question Is that true; are you willing to do that? following his statements I am not sure if I should be talking to you, and I don't know if I need a lawyer  were an invocation of his rights. While Plugh's statements, I am not sure if I should be talking to you and I don't know if I need a lawyer, appear ambiguous, Plugh's ultimate action  his refusal to sign  constituted an unequivocally negative answer to the question posed together by the waiver form and McArdle, namely, whether he was willing to waive his rights. McArdle's direction to Plugh that [i]f you agree with the statement you can sign the form, Plugh, 522 F.Supp.2d at 487, makes the meaning of Plugh's response less ambiguous than the defendant's refusal to sign in Quiroz, where the officer simply asked would you mind just signing these? Quiroz, 13 F.3d at 509. Plugh's answer in this context, under Quiroz, amounts to an invocation, and that is where the inquiry ends. [9] Because Plugh invoked his rights, the custodial officers should have refrained from reinitiating the interrogation, and all subsequent statements made by Plugh were properly suppressed. [10] See Part II., infra.