Cessation of interrogation upon invocation of Miranda rights

Doctrine › Miranda

Leading case

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

How courts have described it

holding that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statements made during custodial interrogation may be admitted in evidence

United States v. Bezanson-Perkins, 390 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2004)

holding that during custodial interrogation waiver of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is possible only if the suspect is told explicitly of certain entitlements

United States v. Nathan L. Hill and Cordell James, 252 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2001)

holding that once the right to counsel in invoked, “the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present”

United States v. Choudhry, 24 F. Supp. 3d 273 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)

holding that a person subjected to custodial interrogation must be advised of his rights to silence and counsel, and that if he invokes either of these rights interrogation must cease

United States v. Rock, 798 F. Supp. 2d 992 (E.D. Wis. 2011)

holding that an individual subjected to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to counsel and right to silence

Ward v. Murphy, 330 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Conn. 2004)

observing that, once warnings have been given and the suspect invokes his right to remain silent, any further statement "cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise"

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Lukach, J., 195 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2018)

“Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.”

People v. Elliott, 833 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. 2013)

explaining that questioning must cease when suspect invokes right to counsel

Abel Abraham Rueda v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2024)

explaining that Miranda rights apply to statements made or silence invoked during custodial interrogation

Francisco Salazar v. State (Tex. App. 2018)

holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against self-incrimination

State v. Rasheed, 340 S.W.3d 280 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)

holding that when a suspect invokes his right to counsel or remain silent, police must cease questioning until counsel is present or an ensuing confession will be deemed involuntary

Oscar C. Wells v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010)

holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to a suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against self-incrimination

State v. Williams, 163 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)

allowing suspect to invoke right to remain silent “in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning”

State v. Gutierrez, 864 P.2d 894 (Utah Ct. App. 1993)

Related doctrines

• Custody, Not Investigative Focus, Triggers Miranda
• Edwards bar to reinterrogation applies across separate investigations
• Initiation of further communication under Edwards
• Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel
• Miranda impeachment exception
• No police-initiated reinterrogation after invocation of counsel without counsel present
• Question-First, Warn-Later Interrogation (Two-Step Interrogation)
• Suspect's Unawareness of Interrogation Subjects Does Not Invalidate Miranda Waiver
• Unambiguous invocation of counsel required to halt custodial questioning
• Unambiguous Invocation of the Miranda Right to Remain Silent
• Undercover questioning of incarcerated suspect is not custodial interrogation
• Waiver of Miranda rights — knowing, intelligent, and voluntary standard

About this page

The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.