State v. Hambly

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed Scott M. Hambly's conviction for delivering cocaine and upheld the denial of his motion to suppress inculpatory statements. The court held that Hambly effectively invoked his Fifth Amendment Miranda right to counsel while in custody and before interrogation, but that the officer's subsequent statements did not constitute interrogation. The court further concluded that Hambly initiated communication and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

Holdings

1. Hambly effectively invoked his Fifth Amendment Miranda right to counsel when, after being taken into custody, he unequivocally requested an attorney before interrogation. The court resolved the case under both the anytime-in-custody standard and the imminent-or-impending-interrogation standard, but the lead opinion did not definitively choose between those competing temporal standards.
2. Rindt's statement explaining that Hambly was under arrest because he had sold cocaine to an informant did not constitute express questioning or the functional equivalent of express questioning.
3. After invoking his right to counsel, Hambly initiated further communication with police by stating that he did not understand why he was under arrest and seeking information about his situation and options.
4. Hambly voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel after initiating communication, making his inculpatory statements admissible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hambly effectively invoked his Fifth Amendment Miranda right to counsel by requesting an attorney while in custody but before formal interrogation.
2. Whether Detective Rindt's explanation of the reason for Hambly's arrest constituted express questioning or its functional equivalent under Rhode Island v. Innis.
3. Whether Hambly initiated further communication after invoking counsel and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda right to counsel.

Disposition

affirmed