Davis v. United States
Citation and Court
512 U.S. 452 (1994), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
After waiving his Miranda rights, a Navy petty officer under investigation for murder made statements during questioning. Partway through, he said “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” Investigators asked him to clarify whether he was requesting a lawyer, and he said he was not. Questioning continued and he made incriminating statements.
Issue
Whether an ambiguous or equivocal reference to counsel during a post-waiver custodial interrogation requires police to cease questioning.
Holding
An ambiguous or equivocal statement regarding the desire for counsel does not require police to stop questioning; a suspect must clearly and unambiguously invoke the right to counsel to trigger the Edwards v. Arizona protection.
Rule / Doctrine
To invoke the Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda, a suspect must make an unambiguous, unequivocal request for an attorney. Ambiguous references — such as “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” — do not obligate officers to cease interrogation, though they may, but are not required to, clarify the suspect’s wishes.
Significance
Davis establishes the “clear and unambiguous” invocation standard for the Miranda right to counsel, resolving a circuit split and complementing McNeil v. Wisconsin and Berghuis v. Thompkins. It places the burden squarely on the suspect to make a clear assertion of the right, and limits the prophylactic protection of Edwards v. Arizona to unequivocal requests.