Commonwealth v. Fayne

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia considers whether statements made by Brian Fayne after he invoked his right to counsel were admissible under Edwards v. Arizona. The court holds that, although police initially violated Edwards by continuing to question Fayne, the interrogation later ended, Fayne reinitiated communication, and he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The court reverses the Court of Appeals and reinstates the trial court’s denial of Fayne’s motion to suppress.

Holdings

1. An initial violation of Edwards v. Arizona does not permanently bar later communication or automatically taint all subsequent statements. When the post-invocation interrogation ends and the suspect thereafter reinitiates communication, the later statements may be admissible if accompanied by a valid waiver.
2. Fayne reinitiated communication with law enforcement when, after the interrogation ended and he was left alone, he opened the door, requested Detective Smith, repeated that request when told Smith might be unavailable, and resumed discussion.
3. Fayne knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before making the subsequent statements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether statements made after police violated Edwards by continuing to question Fayne after his invocation of counsel were admissible when the interrogation later ended and Fayne independently reinitiated communication.
2. Whether Fayne knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before making the subsequent statements.
3. Whether the circuit court properly denied Fayne's motion to suppress.

Disposition

reversed