Opinion ID: 2979912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Malcolm’s Mention of Counsel

Text: Once a suspect invokes his right to counsel, he may not be “subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85. A request for the assistance of counsel must be “unambiguous or unequivocal.” Davis, 512 U.S. at 459-62. The key inquiry is to look at whether “a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.” Id. at 459. In the previous section, we concluded that Malcolm was not in custody at the time that he mentioned the possibility of speaking with an attorney and was therefore not entitled to counsel under Miranda. See Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 494-95 (holding that a burglary suspect who voluntarily replied to a police request for an interview was not entitled to Miranda warnings in a noncustodial situation). Additionally, his statement was ambiguous and equivocal, and therefore failed to meet the requirements established by the Supreme Court to mandate an end of questioning. See Davis, 512 U.S. at 462 (affirming the lower courts’ holdings that a suspect’s remark during custodial interrogation that “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not a request for counsel). Consequently, the agents did not err in failing to halt the interview when Malcolm mentioned the possibility of acquiring representation. Likewise, the agents were not required to cease their questioning of Malcolm after they placed him in custody on the basis of his prior ambiguous request for counsel—Malcolm never requested counsel after being placed in custody.