U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Suppression of Statements

The Court issued an opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680), holding that a “break in custody” permits the police to resume questioning a suspect who had previously asked for a lawyer.

Shatzer had been in prison when he was initially questioned. He was returned to the general prison population after he invoked the right to counsel. Two and a half years later police reinitiated interrogation, and Shatzer waived his Miranda rights. Maryland courts suppressed the confession, but the Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that the break in custody created an exception to the rule articulated in Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel. The Court also created an arbitrary period of 14 days in which the Edwards prophylactic rule expires after a break in custody.

On February 23 the Court issued a decision in Florida v. Powell (08-1175), in which it addressed whether advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’]questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time. . . during th[e] interview,” satisfied Miranda.

At issue were the warnings provided in the Tampa Police Department Consent and Release Form 310, which states: “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights atany time you want during this interview.” According to the Court, these warnings met Miranda’s requirement that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.”