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

Invocation by Attorney

Recently a defense attorney came to the station where his client was being held.  For some reason he was allowed access to the suspect even though the suspect had not yet been given his Miranda warnings or asked for counsel. Nonetheless the attorney told the officers he represented the suspect and that the suspect would remain silent and the officers would not be speaking to the suspect.   The attorney then left.  Officers then provided the Miranda warnings to the suspect and he confessed.  How can that be legal?


Miranda rights are personal

Miranda rights can not be invoked by third parties. Miranda rights are personal and can only be invoked by the suspect. In This case, def’s lawyer attempted to make blanket invocation on client’s behalf even as to crimes the lawyer was not appointed for. P v. Beltran 75 CA4th 425

Def’s pub def files document invoking Miranda on def’s behalf for any future investigations. HELD: document is meaningless. You cannot invoke Miranda UNTIL you are in custody facing immediate questioning. 75 CA4th 416 People v. Avila


Attorneys cannot place a blanket invocation about other crimes. 

The proposition that counsel in one case can file a blanket invocation preventing the police from questioning their client about any other case, even where the client voluntarily waives his rights to remain silent and to have his attorney present during questioning, has been foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court in Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 and McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) 501 U.S. 171, 183, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158.

In Moran the court held that the respondent validly waived his Miranda rights even though he was unaware counsel obtained on his behalf sought to speak with him but had been turned away by the police. (Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135.) “Events occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him surely can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right.” (Id, at p. 422, 106 S.Ct. 1135.) In a footnote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected “a novel `agency’ theory of the Fifth Amendment under which any perceived deception of a lawyer is automatically treated as deception of his or her client. This argument entirely disregards the elemental and established proposition that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is, by hypothesis, a personal one that can only be invoked by the individual whose testimony is being compelled.” (Id. at p. 433, fn. 4, 106 S.Ct. 1135, emphasis added.)

In McNeil v. Wisconsin, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 183, 111 S.Ct. 271*2712204, the United States Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the initial hearing to set bail did not operate to also invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. (Id. at pp. 173, 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204.) The court declined to adopt such a rule as a matter of public policy because the result would be that “most persons in pretrial custody for serious offenses would be unapproachable by police officers suspecting them of involvement in other crimes, even though they have never expressed any unwillingness to be questioned. Since the ready ability to obtain uncoerced confessions is not an evil but an unmitigated good, society would be the loser. Admissions of guilt resulting from valid Miranda waivers `are more than merely “desirable”; they are essential to society’s compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.'” (Id. at p. 181, 111 S.Ct. 2204, emphasis in original, quoting Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 426, 106 S.Ct. 1135.)


If the attorney tries to invoke on behalf of her client, disregard, get a valid waiver and question.

N.B. California Penal Code section 825(b) makes it  a misdemeanor if a police officer does not allow a suspect to meet with his attorney after the attorney has been contacted by the suspect or his family and is present at the station. 

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • 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
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • 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