“I Don’t Want to Talk No More” Unambiguous Invocation to Remain Silent

Police were in error and violated the suspect’s right to remain silent when they continued questioning him after he said “I don’t want to talk no more, man” 

Jones v. Harrington, 2016 BL 235726, 9th Cir., No. 13-56360, 7/22/16.

The Ninth Circuit overruled a Californian appellate court that initially found that a suspect did not invoke his right to remain silent because after saying “I don’t want to talk no more, man,” he quickly followed up by stating “You don’t want to hear what I’m telling you.” The Californian court held that the initial refusal to talk, in the context of the entire conversation, was only him expressing his frustration, not an invocation of the right to remain silent.

The circuit court, however, disagreed. The court held that the Californian court erred because responses by a suspect after their invocation of the right to remain silent cannot be relied on to establish whether the invocation was ambiguous or not. The Ninth Circuit relied on Smith v. Illinois, which held “once a suspect clearly invokes his right to counsel, officers may not continue to question him and use his answers to those questions to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of his initial invocation.”

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Jones_v_Harrington_No_1356360_2016_BL_235726_9th_Cir_Aug_31_2015_

Request For Lawyer’s Contact Information From Girlfriend Considered Invocation of Counsel

Police in Georgia were found to violate a suspect’s right to counsel by continuing to question him after he requested that the police contact his girlfriend to get his lawyer’s information. 

State v. Philpot, 2016 BL 178848, Ga., No. S16A0334, 6/6/16.

    The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the suspect did invoke his right to counsel by asking the police that were questioning him to contact his girlfriend so she could get a hold of his lawyer. There was an initial issue of whether there was ambiguity in his invocation for counsel, but the Supreme Court was unwilling to find comments made by the suspect as ambiguous as he attempted to exercise his rights. The Georgia court reaffirms that a suspect can invoke his right to counsel by contacting a third party first to arrange for their lawyer to appear.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Philpot_No_S16A0334_2016_BL_178848_Ga_June_06_2016_Court_

Noncustodial Interviews Must Stop When Lawyer Arrives

Police had a duty, under the State's due process clause, to tell a man being questioned that his lawyer had arrived, even though he was not technically in custody.

State v. McAdams, 2016 BL 126886, Fla., No. SC14-788, 4/21/16

     The Florida Supreme Court ruled that, even if a suspect came to the station voluntarily and is not yet in custody, police questioning must stop when the suspect's lawyer arrives. The court decided that "the only way to properly protect the due process rights of citizens under the Florida Constitution is to implement a bright-line rule." The bright line rule will prevent the court from determining specifically "what type of conduct, coupled with the failure to inform the individual of the attorney's presence, would be sufficiently outrageous to rise to the level of a due process violation."

     This ruling, along with previous rulings, confirms Florida's greater due process protections than that of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/State_v_McAdams_No_SC14788_2016_BL_126886_Fla_Apr_21_2016_Court_O?1463582946

Waiver of Appointed Counsel by Being Combative

A defendant "forfeited" his right to appointed counsel by causing his first three lawyers to withdraw and physically threatening the fourth.

 

State v. Nisbet, 2016 BL 60371, Me., Cum-14-224, 2/25/16

     The Maine Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who constantly caused issues with his appointed counsel "forfeited" his right to that counsel when he caused his first three lawyers to withdraw and physically threatening the fourth lawyer appointed.

     The court also said that, in the alternative, the defendant waived his right to counsel by implication. The trial court also told the defendant several times that he had driven away qualified attorneys, and warned him that if he continued to misbehave he would be forced to continue without representation.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/STATE_OF_MAINE_v_JOSHUA_R_NISBET_No_CUM14224_2016_BL_60371_Me_Feb?1458315821

Query About Lawyer Not Invocation

If the suspect is not clear if they actually want a lawyer brought, and they sound indecisive, a reasonable officer would not necessarily interpret this as a request for an attorney.

 

People v. Kutlak, 2016 BL 6048, Colo., No. 13SC499, 1/11/16

    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a man who told the police that he had a lawyer on retainer, and later added an ambiguous statement about getting the lawyer was not making a request for an attorney. The video of the interview shows that the suspect's voice was "indecisive" and that he "shrugged" while making the statement.

    The court ruled that the man was not clear whether he definitely wanted a lawyer's assistance or was merely contemplating the issues of getting the lawyer to come to his aid. The court determined that this would not lead a reasonable officer to interpret this as a request for an attorney.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Petitioner_The_People_of_the_State_of_Colorado_v_Respondent_Leven?1453220327