Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that a suspect's question, "Can I get an attorney?", was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda and Edwards. The court held that police could not resume interrogation by giving a second set of Miranda warnings and obtaining a waiver without counsel, a break in custody, or suspect-initiated communication. Because the confession was improperly admitted and the error was not harmless, the court reversed the convictions and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the statement "Can I get an attorney?" is an unequivocal invocation of the Miranda right to counsel.
- Whether police may resume interrogation by giving a second set of Miranda warnings and obtaining a waiver after a suspect has invoked the right to counsel, absent reinitiation, a sufficient break in custody, or the provision of counsel.
- Whether admission of Carter's confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holdings
- A suspect's question, "Can I get an attorney?" is an unambiguous and unequivocal request for the assistance of counsel and requires interrogation to cease immediately.
- After a suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not initiate further interrogation unless the suspect reinitiates communication, there is a sufficient break in custody, or the requested counsel is provided. A second set of Miranda warnings and a subsequent waiver do not cure an interrogation initiated in violation of that rule.
- Admission of Carter's confession was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the confession was the linchpin of the prosecution's case and the remaining evidence did not establish that the error did not contribute to the convictions.
Key quotations
“We hold that the question "Can I get an attorney?" is an unequivocal request for the aid of counsel, triggering the requirement that all interrogation immediately cease.” (129 Nev. at 244)
“To hold that a suspect who asks "Can I get an attorney?" does not invoke his right to counsel would suggest that no statement phrased as a question could invoke one's right to counsel—a holding contrary to law and lacking a fundamental understanding of the nature of human interaction.” (129 Nev. at 249)
“Simply put, once an accused expresses his desire to confer with counsel, there are no actions that police officers can take to revive questioning other than honoring that request.” (129 Nev. at 250)
Factual background
Law enforcement investigated a series of robberies and identified Carter as a possible suspect after a witness identified a black Mazda Miata as an escape vehicle and agents found a mask-like white T-shirt in trash outside Carter's home. After Carter's arrest, Detective Martin advised him of his Miranda rights while escorting him to the police station. During the drive, Carter asked, "Can I get an attorney?" or words to that effect, but officers did not stop the interaction or provide counsel. At the station, officers gave Carter a second set of Miranda warnings, obtained a waiver, and elicited a confession that became the principal evidence supporting his convictions.
Procedural history
Carter was convicted in the Eighth Judicial District Court of eight counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm, twelve counts of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and one count of coercion. Before trial, he moved to suppress a confession obtained after he asked, "Can I get an attorney?" The district court found the request ambiguous and concluded that a later set of Miranda warnings and waiver permitted interrogation. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed because the confession was obtained in violation of the right to counsel and the error was not harmless, remanding for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Reverse the judgment of conviction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.