Criminal Procedure
559 U.S. 98 (2010)
Study notes for Maryland v. Shatzer: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A suspect's invocation of the right to counsel is deemed to be ‘dissipated’ after a break in custody of at least 14 days.
In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Supreme Court addressed the interaction between a suspect's invocation of the right to counsel and the conditions under which police can later initiate questioning after a significant break in custody. The Court emphasized that a return to the general prison population constitutes a break in custody, effectively allowing law enforcement to re-initiate interrogation after a sufficient time lapse, which they determined to be at least 14 days. This decision highlights the importance of balancing the protection of suspects' rights under Miranda and the need for effective law enforcement.
14 Days of Freedom: A break in custody clears the way for another interrogation.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Edwards v. Arizona | In Edwards, the Court held that once a suspect invokes his right to counsel, police cannot initiate interrogation unless the suspect initiates dialogue. |
| Michigan v. Jackson | Michigan v. Jackson prohibited interrogation after an invocation of the right to counsel in the absence of a substantial break in custody, unlike Shatzer's case. |
| Oregon v. Elstad | Oregon v. Elstad allows for the use of later statements made after a valid Miranda waiver even if an initial statement was obtained in violation of Miranda rights, unlike the strict prohibition in Edwards. |
The ruling helps to clarify law enforcement strategies and gives them practical guidelines on re-initiating interrogations, balancing effective policing with suspect rights.
Critics argue that this rule may undermine the protections of the Fifth Amendment, allowing coercive tactics to resurface after a break in custody.
On exams, this case may be presented in the context of discussions on the scope of Miranda rights and the legality of police interrogations. Expect to analyze how time and custody status affect the validity of subsequent interrogations.