| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Keith Shackleton is killed after losing a bet and pool game to Davis. Naval investigators find a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, and bring him in for questionng. He gets the military quivalent of Mirandia warnings. He answers questions, and after a while says, "maybe I should talk to a lawyer." The investigators ask follow-up questions to see what he really means, and the interview proceeds. Later he says "I think I want a lawyer," and that that point they stop. |
| Posture: | Motion to suppress his statements at trial is denied. Convicted and sentenced. Affirmed on appeal. Cert granted. |
| Issue: | When a suspect makes an ambiguous reference to counsel, what should officers do? |
| Holding: | Affirmed. The officers did nothing wrong. |
| Rule: | After a knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights, officers may continue questioning a subject until there is a clear request for an attorney. |
| Reasoning: | Miranda rights are procedural safeguards, not free-standing constitutional rights. What we're trying to prevent here is police badgering of suspects. Suspects can have counsel, but they need to actually invoke that right. If a statement is ambiguous, it doesn't invoke the right to counsel. Also, when faced with an ambiguous utterance, officers are not required to ask clarifying questions, although the Navy investigators did an exemplary job here. |
| Dicta: | Souter, concurring: A suspect is not required to speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don. |