People v. Broder

Summary

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that Chad Broder's statements during custodial interrogation did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda. The court concluded that the interrogating officer permissibly asked limited clarifying questions, reversed the trial court's suppression order, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Broder's statements about speaking with his lieutenant and obtaining coverage for counsel were ambiguous and equivocal under the totality of the circumstances, and did not place a reasonable police officer on notice that Broder intended to invoke the right to counsel for the interrogation.
2. When a suspect's statements concerning the right to counsel are ambiguous, the interrogating officer may conduct a limited inquiry for the sole purpose of determining whether the suspect wants an attorney before proceeding and obtaining a waiver.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Broder's statements about speaking with his lieutenant and obtaining coverage for counsel constituted an unambiguous invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda.
2. Whether the interrogating officer could ask limited clarifying questions before obtaining a valid waiver when Broder's statements concerning counsel were ambiguous.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded