Is this a valid waiver of Miranda?

Question

One night Officer Tackleberry arrests Joe Blow for DWI and Resisting a Police Officer. During the booking process the Officer Mirandizes Joe and tries to ask him questions about his drinking that night. Joe tells the Officer to get lost and invokes his right to a lawyer. Tackleberry stops questioning Joe at that time. Joe is placed in jail that night. The next morning Detective Callahan learns that Joe is in jail. Joe is a suspect in a robbery Callahan is working. Joe has not seen a lawyer yet and has not been to court. Detective Callahan does not know that Joe has already been read Miranda. Callahan goes to the jail and Mirandizes Joe again. Joe waives his Miranda rights and talks to Callahan. Joe is alone during the interview and eventually confesses to the robbery. Was Miranda applied properly in this scenario? Why?

Here's a copy of Miranda for those not familiar with it:
1. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Don't read anything into this question (like Joe's level of intoxication). Everything you need to answer the question is here.

Answer 1

I'm going to say that the advisement was invalid citing Arizona vs. Roberson, Supreme Court of the United States, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404 (1988). "Once a suspect has requested an attorney during custodial interrogation, that police are prohibited from subjecting that suspect to further questioning - regardless of whether that questioning concerns the offense at issue or a wholly unrelated offense- unless the suspect himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police."

Further in Edwards v Arizona (which not only reenforced Arizona vs. Roberson), 451 U.S. 477, 484-485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-1885 (1981),the court attached "no significance to the fact that the officer who conducted the second interrogation did not know that [defendant] had made a request for counsel. In addition to the fact that Edwards focuses on the state of mind of the suspect and not of the police, custodial interrogation must be conducted pursuant to established procedures, and those procedures in turn must enable an officer who proposes to initiate an interrogation to determine whether the suspect has previously requested counsel. In this case [defendant's] request has been properly memorialized in a written report but the officer who conducted the interrogation simply failed to examine that report."

Answer 2

Not everything to answer the question is there. If Officer Tackleberry advised Joe Blow of his Miranda rights, then a copy of the Rights, along with the notation of refusal to talk without an attiorney, would have been attached to both the arrest report and the booking paperwork in the jail. Detective Callahan would have seen this upon checking the jail paperwork, and therefore would not have given Miranda again without attorney presence.

Answer 3

Excellent question and will give me some practice for law school.

I would say that he was properly Mirandized because Detective Callahan was investigating and ended up questioning him on an unrelated charge. The detective followed the proper procedure by reading him his rights before questioning him. Therefore, since they are two separate and unrelated charges and he was properly read his rights for both charges, it should hold up in court. It just happened that the suspect happened to be in jail at the time, however, the two were completely unrelated offenses.

I can see how a defense attorney would argue against this, however, I would maintain that the person was properly read his rights and still sought to make a confession to the robbery. His right to counsel remains invoked on the initial charge and the suspect (as far as I can tell from the information provided) was not questioned on the DWI or Resisting an Officer).

I would also add that this guy is a complete idiot, for being read his rights on two separate occasions and still making a confession.

Answer 4

A better way: Assuming Det Callahan didn't yet file a wanted on Joe or for some reason it didn't come up when Ofc Tackleberry ran the customary ID check, Callahan could wait until just after Joe is arraigned or just before he is out-processed or properly bailed on the DUI before questioning him. Alternately, when Joe's DUI counsel materializes, Callahan could arrange to be present, perhaps even "cautioning" him on the way into the cells that Joe is a person of interest in a robbery investigation.

Answer 5

Yes he was mirandized properly. Because it is two separate incidents, Miranda does have to be read twice (once last night and once today) to the suspect. As long as Joe Blow was marandized, any admission he made from jail, would be admissible in the Courts. However, if Callahan wanted to talk to the suspect about the OWI again, he couldn't due to the fact that Joe Blow didn't want to talk to the police about it the first time.

Answer 6

YES! The suspect must be read miranda after being arrested before he can be asked questions. Prior to being arrested he can be asked questions because it is the officer performing a investigation. (DWI). Now, the detective, is onto a whole other investigation. Mr. suspect is in jail and obviously can leave on his own when he wants to do so. That invokes the Miranda warning. He was read his rights and waived to talk to police. The confession on that point will stand. Mr. suspect could have stopped talking at any point and asked for legal council.
Hope that answers you question

Answer 7

Following "Lee F" you have a legal rights advisement.

First...you have to consider that there are two different offenses involved. The first officer involved with the DWI advised Miranda and terminated the interview after the suspect invoked his rights.

Because the second offense/investigation had nothing to do with the first...the officer advised Miranda with the suspect declining legal counsel.

There are no violations of Miranda!

Answer 8

Yes, Joe is sunk. The best argument would be that he didn't understand the Rights while drunk - but he was read them again while sober and then confessed. Bad idea. Some confessions get tossed when you get a really good attorney to say the police were applying undo pressure, but, really, this doesn't sound like that is what happened.

Answer 9

Yes it is a valid waiver of miranda. The reason is because they are for separate incidents. Moreover, even though Joe Blow has vlounteered to speak to the detective, he can invoke his miranda rights at any time during the questioning phase.

Answer 10

Yes, it is a legal questioning. He was read his rights by the investigating officer and waived them. He asked for a lawyer on the initial charge of resisting and dui, but when he was read his rights by a different investigator, he had no knowledge of the request for a lawyer. The confession would be legal for admission as evidence.