Document: 451 U.S. 477 101 S.Ct. 1880 68 L.Ed.2d 378 Robert EDWARDS, Petitioner,v.State of ARIZONA. No. 79-5269. Argued Nov. 5, 1980. Decided May 18, 1981. Rehearing Denied June 22, See 452 973, 3128. Syllabus After being arrested on a state criminal charge, and after informed his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, petitioner was questioned the police January 19, 1976, until he said that wanted an attorney. Questioning then ceased, but 20 officers came to jail and, stating they talk him again informing rights, obtained confession when willing talk. The trial court ultimately denied petitioner's motion suppress confession, finding statement be voluntary, thereafter convicted. Arizona Supreme Court held during meeting waived right remain silent counsel voluntarily gave rights. Held: use against at violated under Fifth Fourteenth Amendments have present custodial interrogation, declared in Miranda, supra. Having exercised 19 did not validly waive 20th. Pp. 481-487. (a) A waiver counsel, once invoked, only must also constitute knowing intelligent relinquishment known or privilege. Here, however, courts applied erroneous standard for determining focusing voluntariness rather than whether understood intelligently knowingly relinquished it. 482-484. (b) When accused has invoked valid cannot established showing responded police-initiated interrogation advised An accused, such petitioner, having expressed desire deal with through is subject further been made available him, unless himself initiated communication, exchanges, conversations police. instance authorities, without had access amount hence inadmissible. 484-487. 122 Ariz. 206, 594 P.2d 72, reversed. Michael J. Meehan, Tucson, Ariz., petitioner. Crane McClennen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, respondent. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari this case, 446 950, 100 2915, 64 807 (1980), limited Q presented petition, which relevant part "whether Fifth, Sixth, require suppression post-arrest Edwards consult before . ." 2 * On sworn complaint filed charging robbery, burglary, first-degree murder.1 arrest warrant issued pursuant complaint, home later same day. At station, 694 (1966). Petitioner stated submit questioning. told another suspect already custody implicated crime, involvement taped presenting alibi defense. He sought "make deal." interrogating officer statement, authority negotiate deal. provided telephone number county call, hung up few moments. said: "I want attorney making point, questioning ceased taken jail. 3 9:15 next morning, two detectives, colleagues who interrogated previous night, asked see Edwards. detention detectives wished speak replied anyone. guard "he had" took meet detectives. identified themselves, talk, first hear alleged accomplice him.2 listening tape several minutes, would make so long it tape-recorded. recording irrelevant since could testify concerning whatever said. replied: "I'll tell you anything know, I don't tape." thereupon crime. 4 Prior trial, moved ground returned question counsel. initially suppress,3 reversed its ruling supposedly controlling decision higher court.4 explanation found Edwards' voluntary. tried twice convicted.5 Evidence admitted both trials. 5 appeal, conducted night 19.6 went determine, need answer questions advice counsel: "The court's were upheld." 6 Because construed supra, we reverse judgment Court.7 II 7 In determined Amendments' prohibition compelled self-incrimination preceded putative defendant presence U.S., 479, S.Ct., 1630. indicated procedures followed subsequent warnings. If indicates wishes silent, "the cease." requests cease present." Id., 474, 1627. 8 thus Amendment interrogation. critical facts are asserted police, furnishing morning confront result secured incriminating oral admissions. Contrary holdings courts, insists 19th For following reasons, agree. 9 First, where specifically It reasonably clear our cases waivers abandonment privilege, matter depends each case "upon particular circumstances surrounding including background, experience, conduct accused." Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Faretta California, 422 806, 835, 95 2525, 2541, 45 562 (1975); North Carolina Butler, 441 369, 374-375, 99 1755, 1758, 60 286 (1979); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 404, 97 1232, 1242, 51 424 (1977); Fare C., 442 707, 724-725, 2560, 2571-2572, 61 197 (1979). 10 Considering proceedings light standard, note denying suppress, admission "voluntary," App. 3, 95, separately Court, section entitled "Voluntariness Waiver," confessions prima facie involuntary State burden preponderance evidence freely made. issue should based totality related accused's action "knowing will [was] overborne." 212, P.2d, 78. Once determines upset appeal absent manifest error." Ibid. upheld "waiver made." 11 referring necessity find intelligent, cited Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 226, 93 2041, 2047, 36 854 (1973). Yet, does control case. what conditions individual consented search thereby Fourth declined impose "intentional privilege" consent voluntary circumstances. noted prime example those requiring special protection id., 241, 2055, "[t]he considerations Court's holding simply inapplicable case." 246, 2057. itself emphasized one hand, other, discrete inquiries. however sound conclusion may be, neither nor undertook focus apparent below misunderstood requirement invoked. 12 Second, although respond 372-376, 1757-1759, strongly additional safeguards necessary asks counsel; now hold even if rights.8 Edwards, authorities initiates 13 assertion significant event Our abandoned view. Michigan Mosley, 423 96, 96 321, 46 313 (1975), distinguished between procedural triggered request 104, n. 10, 326, 10; 109-111, 329-330 (White, J., concurring). 719, 2569, referred Miranda's "rigid rule per se invocation all And just last Term, "undisputed right" free "until consulted lawyer." Rhode Island Innis, 291, 298, 1682, 1688, 297 (1980). reconfirm these views lend them substance, emphasize inconsistent progeny their instance, reinterrogate clearly 14 concluding fruits used do imply powerless countermand election no any statements prior Had 20, nothing prohibit from merely volunteered using trial. Absent there infringement occasion determine waiver. makes sufficiently clear. 2, 2.9 15 But show. conducting evening requested do. sufficient accord. This suggestion request. Indeed, meeting, prompted appear. listened own accomplices think subjected within meaning occurred authorities. His inadmissible.10 Accordingly, infirm, 17 So ordered. 18 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. concur because agree either constitutional (1966)—as dicta—calls how extraordinary protections afforded person suspected basis, "good" things can carried too far. notion "prompting" somehow evil rejected. me, inquiry setting resumption waiver, resolved traditional standards (1938): "A ordinarily intentional determination depend, upon 21 Accord, e. g., described situation follows: 22 "When wish to." 209, 75 (1979) (emphasis added). 23 enough record erred product 304, 1691 (concurring opinion), 417-418, 1248-1249, (1977) (dissenting opinion). 24 POWELL, whom REHNQUIST joins, result. 25 Although reversed, join am sure means. 26 much opinion. states settled rule: 27 "It 'upon experience accused.' 464 [58 1461] 835 [95 562] 374-375 [99 286] 404 [97 424] 724-725 197] (1979)." Ante, 482-483. 28 thought law, us, crime safeguards—including jury call witnesses, cross-examine one's accusers, behalf, and—of course—to Whatever right, actor fully understands intends relinquish 29 today, Court—after reiterating familiar principles waiver—goes say: 30 "We [has] initiate[d] police." 484-485 31 view emphasis placed "initiation," ante, 485-486, 9, unclear. read create new rule, threshold precisely opened conversation officials, superimpose element proof doctrine 32 Perhaps departing doctrine. Accepting formulation quoted above, identifiable: (i) fact "interrogation," (ii) "initiate" it? Each is, course, admissibility confession. example, cell renewed Whether police-"initiated" some other way, incompatible fundamental 33 one. Communications common-place. useful contrast typical, permissible, communications impermissibly engaging routine suspects about unrelated matters. legitimately inquire changed mind speaking E. Turner, Or.App. 61, 65, 573 327 (1978); Crisler, 285 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Minn.1979); Marcum, Wash.App. 441, 445-446, 601 975, 978 unusual previously unwillingness lawyer, change welcome opportunity Nothing Constitution erects obstacles preclude ascertaining reconsidered original decision. As observed, consistently "rejected paternalistic protecting decisions 109, 329, (1975) (WHITE, result).1 34 sum, warnings given inquiry—whether desires counsel—is Who "initiated" sine qua non inquiry. ultimate commenced. 35 more restate principles, agreement hesitate appears undue undefined, single element: "initiation." noted, Ari- zona, (1965), imposed general prophylactic manifestly text Constitution. 526, 1654 dissenting); Tucker, 417 433, 443-444, 94 2357, 2363, 41 182 (1974). recognized, moreover, counsel's assistance waived. 475, 1628 (opinion Warren, C. J.). Waiver always evaluated Zerbst above. My concern today "constitutionalizing" generalized among various waiver.2 most Arizona. brought tape-recording them. judge met so, concluded ignored evening. 91-93. Travis, Ariz.App. 24, 545 986 (1976). unable reach verdict. disputed State. court, while arguable, assist negotiating "sufficiently clear" context "must interpreted decide claim deprived Sixth Massiah United States, 377 201, 84 1199, 246 (1964). arises whenever indicted adversary otherwise begun admissions subsequently elicited absence While conceding opening brief merits attached immediately formally charged, supplemental argument position Kirby Illinois, 406 682, 689-690, 92 1877, 1882, 411 (1972), Moore 434 220, 226-227, 98 463-464, 54 (1977), filing formal "adversary judicial proceedings" trigger Under Constitution, "[n]o shall prosecuted criminally felony misdemeanor, information indictment; preliminary examination magistrate examination." Ariz.Const., Art. § 30. contends attach constitutionally indictment least earlier hearing proceeds complaint. prosecution commenced way Rule Criminal Procedure 2.2. "written essential constituting public offense, oath magistrate," 2.3, issues dismisses 2.4. arrested, hearing. 4.1. hearing, ascertains true name address, informs charges charged via 4.2. Unless waived, take place days custody. 5.1. purpose probable cause exists 5.3. Against background support position, relies recognizing Illinois law victim's court," ensuing occurred. Moore, 228, 464. Cf. States Duvall, 537 F.2d 15, 20-22 (CA2) (the issuance Amendment, accruing proceedings), cert. denied, 426 3173, 49 1188 address question, we. where, (1964), accrued, inferred mere response overt subtle forms efforts elicit information. Brewer, engaged appointed absence. McLeod Ohio, 381 356, 85 1556, summarily though yet appointed. If, frequently occur course wholly one-sided, likely say something "interrogation." event, silence occurred, purported circumstances, reopened dialogue Various Courts Appeals effect possible. See, White Finkbeiner, 611 186, 191 (CA7 1979) ("in certain instances, longer represented counsel"), pending, 79-6601; Kennedy Fairman, 618 1242 1980); Rodriguez-Gastelum, 569 482, 486 (CA9) (en banc) (stating sense "[he] never, actually talked present"), 436 919, 2266, 56 760 (1978). generally Cobbs Robinson, 528 1331, 1342 (CA2 1975); Grant, 549 942 (CA4 1977), vacated grounds sub nom. Whitehead 435 912, 1463, 55 502 Hart, 619 325 Hauck, 586 1296 (CA8 1978). Circuit contact. Massey, 550 300 Priest, 409 491 (1969). possible, equivocal. Nash Estelle, 597 513 (CA5 banc). Thompson Wainwright, 768 1979). events subjected. Mosley: "Although recently initial questions, nonetheless know immediately—if true—that ability explain supply time period immediate release. Similarly, might know—if (1) unusually strong (2) cooperation apprehension conviction others recovery property redound benefit form reduced charge." 1, result). Mosley differ somewhat here nevertheless "a blanket taking permanent immunity regardless transform into irrational legitimate investigative activity, deprive assessments interests." 102, 326 STEWART, Such step demonstrably ineffective. There indication, multitude come us failed protect

Category: 0