We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Ambiguous Invocations

Many officers have been taught that when they hear the words, “lawyer,” “counsel” or “attorney” come out of a suspect’s mouth after a Miranda advisement the interview is over. Not true. An invocation of the right to an attorney by the suspect must be so unequivocal that a reasonable peace officer would understand the request. And the request for the lawyer must be for that interview.

All officers know that when a suspect clearly asserts his right to counsel all questioning must stop. What happens when there is an ambiguous statement about a lawyer? At this point an officer has options. You can follow up and attempt to clarify the statement, but because there is no requirement to do so you can do nothing and continue to question or alternatively stop questioning. Wise officers can and should ask follow up questions when there is ambiguity in the invocation of the right to an attorney. The reviewing court will evaluate the reason for the follow up questions. The court will seek to determine whether the questions were designed to keep the defendant talking or whether they were clearly designed to clarify. So what are the ambiguous requests for counsel that allow for clarification and further questioning?

Supreme Court Clarifies

The United States Supreme Court, in Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 452, determined that a suspect’s remark –“Maybe I should talk to a lawyer”– was not a request for counsel. The Investigators testified that they told the defendant they would stop any kind of questioning until they were clear on whether he had asked for an attorney. Defendant ultimately stated that he did not want a lawyer and questioning continued.

The court in Davis stated: “As we have observed, ‘a statement either is such an assertion of the right to counsel or it is not.’ Although a suspect need not ‘speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don[ ]’, he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. The Court went on to say that law enforcement officers are not required to stop questioning when there is an ambiguous or equivocal reference to a lawyer. The Court also stated that police questioning does not need to stop when a suspect might want an attorney. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that while police may seek to clarify a suspect’s ambiguous reference to counsel, they are not required to do so.

Our California Supreme Court is in agreement. In People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 130, the suspect said “I should have a lawyer.” The Court held that this was an ambiguous statement and not an express invocation of the right to a lawyer. The Court held that an ambiguous statement was not an invocation and that the officers may continue talking to the suspect to clarify whether he is waiving or invoking his rights. In Crittenden, after the defendant’s statement, the officer responded by repeating that defendant could have an attorney “if he wanted one.” The Court found that this opens the door to the assertion of that right but that the defendant there did not respond, thus indicating his lack of desire for an attorney. The Court held that the officers could respond, clarify, and continue questioning as long as the clarifying is not an attempt to get the suspect to change his mind.

Interview v. Court Proceedings

Most of the confusion in this area occurs when a suspect indicates he wants and attorney in court. This is frequently mistaken for an invocation. It is not. The suspect has a Sixth Amendment guarantee to have an attorney present when the suspect appears in court for the institution of criminal proceedings. Miranda addresses the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Most suspects do not understand the difference. But you do. “A desire to have an attorney in the future, coupled with an unambiguous willingness to talk in the meantime, is not an invocation of the [Miranda] right to counsel requiring the cessation of the interview.” The legally updated officer understands the difference and knows to clarify any ambiguous request for an attorney.

Some examples of ambiguous requests for an attorney:

• “I should have a lawyer.”

• “I just thinkin’, maybe I shouldn’t say anything without a lawyer and then I thinkin’ ahh.”

• “Did you say I could have a lawyer?”

• “I don’t know if I should have a lawyer…It ain’t going to do me no ….”

• “If you guys are going to charge me…I want to talk to a public defender.”

• “How long before I see a lawyer?”

• “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer.”

• “I think you ought to have somebody protecting me right now because I ain’t to, oh here man.”

• “I’ll want a lawyer eventually but I’m willing to talk now until he gets here.”

• “There wouldn’t be [an attorney] running around here would there? I just don’t know what to do.”

• “I’ve talked to my mom and she says I should get an attorney.”

• “My mom will get me a lawyer from New York.”

• “I don’t know if I should without an attorney”

Chuck Gillingham is a veteran prosecutor. He is also an instructor for the California District Attorneys’ Association and for Santa Clara University School of Law.

  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC