Davis v. United States (1994) ruled that requests for a lawyer must be unambiguous. "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" isn't sufficient. Using this ruling courts have rejected statements like "I think it's about time for me to stop talking" and "I think I would like to talk to a lawyer." - ThreadSky

amandaknox.com • 99 days ago

Davis v. United States (1994) ruled that requests for a lawyer must be unambiguous. "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" isn't sufficient. Using this ruling courts have rejected statements like "I think it's about time for me to stop talking" and "I think I would like to talk to a lawyer."

Comments

rosesomm.bsky.social•98 days ago

This is a huge problem, and courts are often out of step with mainstream language usage here. I have new research on "clear" invocations of Miranda -- clear to whom?! https://t.co/fjpjlJ4vUY

amandaknox.com•98 days ago

Thanks for sharing this!

ferles.bsky.social•96 days ago

One would think that it would be the waiver of Miranda that would have to be unambiguous, not the request for a lawyer.

secballoondogs.bsky.social•97 days ago

I’ve always taught my kid, if the cops are questioning you say, “I want a lawyer,” and then shut up.

charlescolee.bsky.social•61 days ago

Judging by the foregoing, I think I'd add "and I hereby invoke my right to remain silent."

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

Even "Get me a lawyer, dawg" was rejected as not being sufficient for police to Mirandize the suspect because he could have been referring to a "lawyer dog."

tatersandmeat.bsky.social•56 days ago

Holy shit! For real...

willowmims.bsky.social•99 days ago

The fuckery 🤬

sapperb24.bsky.social•99 days ago

JFC

igrenfell.bsky.social•96 days ago

Have the courts specified that a dog can't be a lawyer?

pearls.bsky.social•99 days ago

"A LAWYER DOG." An adorable concept, but being used seriously as an excuse in Miranda legal wrangling is insane. Makes me want to kick things. The absurdity is staggering.

matthewsp.bsky.social•99 days ago

Yup

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-supreme-court/1878711.html

joekatz45.bsky.social•99 days ago

Jfc

wacriminal.bsky.social•99 days ago

This ruling is the kind of thing that should get a judge paraded through the streets and hanged in the public square, naked.

ngg.bsky.social•40 days ago

This is infuriating. They knew he didn't mean he wanted to talk to a canine lawyer.

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) held that an act of silence, even if prolonged for several hours, is not sufficient to invoke the right to silence. Suspects are now required to speak to invoke their right to silence.

robertanj.bsky.social•17 days ago

Not good for persons with unrecognized disorders.

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

Salinas v. Texas (2013) ruled that when a suspect remained silent in answer to a question about a crime, that could be used against him in court even if he'd not been read his Miranda rights and the questioning happened prior to arrest.

griffonatrix.bsky.social•96 days ago

Shit I knew about Thompkins but I didn't know this one

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

So you must now articulate your right to silence before being apprised that you have that right, or else your silence can be used as evidence of guilt.

jsdreke.bsky.social•99 days ago

🧐

sarahlang3.bsky.social•61 days ago

And I suspect ask for a lawyer

gabesayshello.bsky.social•40 days ago

📌

bionicwoman77.bsky.social•69 days ago

I learned about some of these on Interrogation Raw! Thank you for all the precedents.

yvonne-wong.bsky.social•62 days ago

Sorry to interrupt. So the lesson is to recite the Miranda rights myself in the presence of police and then apply them? Is that why it’s drilled into every crime show from the US, to teach its citizens? (I’m Canadian…)

yvonne-wong.bsky.social•62 days ago

Maybe instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, perhaps we should just have kids recite their Miranda Rights in the morning? :)

educ8tusall.bsky.social•41 days ago

This is horrible!

fish19241.bsky.social•51 days ago

Bravo Amanda! Pretty nice rebuttal. I was going to comment on your 'like' of my Wittgenstein reply ("whereof one cannot speak, one should therefore be silent") by adding there is still a lot to say. But this is much more important.

robertanj.bsky.social•17 days ago

Truly frightening

toninparsons.bsky.social•99 days ago

Police having the right to lie during an interrogation effectively negates all of our rights. Thank you for everything you do Amanda. 🙏

tim-dunn-defunct.bsky.social•91 days ago

Question: does the police have the right to send in a nicely dressed plainclothes who says, "My name is Dave, and I'm a lawyer."

I mean, they have the right to lie, but can they lie about this?

murph612.bsky.social•99 days ago

So you have to be non-silent to affirm your right to silence? Make it make sense !!!

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

Yep! It's bonkers.

handgunyoga.bsky.social•61 days ago

Thank you, Amanda!

decker711.bsky.social•16 days ago

Thank you very much for this information.

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

In sum: police circumvent Miranda requirements by creating situations that are not technically custodial, though they feel that way, they are not required to get a waiver before commencing interrogation, the bar for what is considered an adequate warning had been lowered with implied waivers, and...

dmiller62.bsky.social•88 days ago

So would a person be covered by this sequence: 1. Am I free to leave? .. (y: leave). 2. I invoke my right to remain silent, and I formally request a lawyer. 3. 😶.

bem6of7.bsky.social•99 days ago

Isn’t it possible to use your state constitution to look for protections that may be weak or lesser in the us constitution by mead Supreme Court rulings?

teamh.bsky.social•99 days ago

📌

itsnancyann.bsky.social•99 days ago

A clear statement “I want a lawyer” and then not speaking will solve that issue. Your argument about ambiguity proves a portion of my point. No miranda right to silence or clear statement that you want an attorney has been chipped away.

85tigerphotos.bsky.social•67 days ago

Thank you for this. As a public defender, it is beyond frustrating to see what the courts have done in this area.

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

the bar for what constitutes invoking your rights has been raised because you must be explicit, and if you just sit silently, they can use that against you unless you explicitly verbally invoke a right to silence.

nastyriff.bsky.social•98 days ago

This is an excellent thread. I picked up a lot of these caveats by watching too much true crime, but it's nice to get it here without all the attendant trauma.

tech-52.bsky.social•61 days ago

Dear lord. The average Joe and Jane are supposed to understand this level of nuance?😧

mrcontrariwise.bsky.social•59 days ago

It's been undermined in a way that was explicitly designed to keep people from understanding it.

wolfp10.bsky.social•99 days ago

Is this actual case law?

amandaknox.com•99 days ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/

wolfp10.bsky.social•98 days ago

Thank you

flowvoid.bsky.social•93 days ago

There's more to the story. He actually said:

"if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog"

Even omitting "dog", the phrasing is conditional and was ruled to be ambiguous (similar to "maybe I should talk to a lawyer")

talesfrompurgatory.bsky.social•98 days ago

Racist af and not surprising. They’ll just pull whatever shit arguments out of their ass and the judge just nods like a fucking bobble head

talesfrompurgatory.bsky.social•98 days ago

Hahahahah justisss 😞😖

poetprof.bsky.social•60 days ago

That’s crazy. I would literally invoke a “Disney’s The Shaggy D.A. Defense” to fight this—yes, I requested a lawyer dog.

jamesburrell2.bsky.social•60 days ago

crankylibrarian55.bsky.social•34 days ago

Wow.
That’s an impressive amount of ignorance.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply