Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Unambiguous invocation of counsel required to halt custodial questioning
Leading case
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)
How courts have described it
holding that an arrestee's comment that "maybe [she] should talk to a lawyer" did not constitute an unambiguous request for counsel
United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998)
holding that suspect's statement "maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not a request for counsel. "Unless a suspect actually requests an attorney, questioning may continue”
United States v. Michael S. Menzer, 29 F.3d 1223 (7th Cir. 1994)
holding that “after a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney”
Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d 796 (E.D. Mich. 2002)
concluding that an hour-and-one-half after reading Davis his Miranda rights, the statement, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” was an equivocal request for counsel
State v. Wright, 768 N.W.2d 512 (S.D. 2009)
holding that unless suspect “clearly requests” counsel, police do not have to halt questioning
Ajabu v. State, 693 N.E.2d 921 (Ind. 1998)
holding that police have no obligation to stop interrogation until defendant makes an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel
State v. Jones, 566 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1997)
Related doctrines
- Cessation of interrogation upon invocation of Miranda rights
- Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel
- No police-initiated reinterrogation after invocation of counsel without counsel present
- Unambiguous Invocation of the Miranda Right to Remain Silent
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.