Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Miranda requires that before a suspect in custody is interrogated, he must be given full warnings (or the equivalent) of his rights. Specifically, the suspect must receive express warnings of his right to remain silent; that anything he says may be used as evidence against him; that he has a right to counsel; and that, if he cannot afford counsel, he is entitled to an appointed attorney.1 In a later decision, the Court held that it is unnecessary for the police to give the warnings as a verbatim recital of the words in the Miranda opinion itself, so long as the words used fully conveyed
to a defendant his rights.2
Once a warned suspect asserts his right to silence and requests counsel, the police must scrupulously respect this assertion. The Miranda Court stated that once a warned suspect indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.
Further, if the suspect requests the assistance of counsel during interrogation, questioning must cease until he has counsel.3
Subsequently, the Court has often barred the police from continuing (or reinitiating) interrogation with a suspect requesting counsel until counsel is present, except when the suspect himself initiates further communications. In Edwards v. Arizona,4 initial questioning ceased as soon as the suspect requested counsel, and the police returned the suspect to his cell. Questioning resumed the following day only after different police officers had confronted the suspect and again warned him of his rights; the suspect agreed to talk and thereafter incriminated himself. Nonetheless, the Court held, when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. We further hold that an accused . . . , having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.
5 The Edwards rule bars police-initiated questioning stemming from a separate investigation as well as questioning relating to the crime for which the suspect was arrested.6 It also applies to interrogation by officers of a different law enforcement authority.7
On the other hand, the Edwards rule requiring that a lawyer be provided to a suspect who had requested one in an earlier interrogation does not apply once there has been a meaningful break in custody. The Court in Maryland v. Shatzer8 characterized the Edwards rule as a judicially prescribed precaution against using the coercive pressure of prolonged custody to badger a suspect who has previously requested counsel into talking without one. However, after a suspect has been released to resume his normal routine for a sufficient period to dissipate the coercive effects of custody, a period set at 14 days by the Shatzer Court, the rationale for solicitous treatment ceases. If the police take the suspect into custody again, the options for questioning him are no longer limited to suspect-initiated talks or providing counsel. Rather, the police may issue new Miranda warnings and proceed accordingly.9 The Court has not extended the Edwards rule explicitly to other aspects of the Miranda warnings.10