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


As covered in other recent training bulletins, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Davis (1994) 512 U.S. 452 and Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2250, a suspect must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney before interrogation must cease. Often, officers will be faced with the situation where a suspect will make an ambiguous reference to an attorney or the right to remain silent. In that instance, officers may inquire to figure out the suspect’s true meaning. The following are some examples of ambiguous invocations that were found not to be invocations. (Not all are direct quotes but are taken from published cases.)

• I was told to talk to an attorney but I will talk to you now.
• I want to have an attorney here. I will talk to you until I think I need one. I don’t need one now.
• I would like to know how long it will take to get an attorney. I would like to try to get one to get the process started. The officer asked whether the suspect wanted an attorney right then, the suspect said no but that he was sure he would want one during the interview.

Asking questions about attorneys are not invocations.

• How long will it take to get a lawyer?
• What time will I see a lawyer?
• Do I get a lawyer?
• You said I might have a lawyer?
• I guess I need one?
• Do you think I need a lawyer?
• Should I be talking to you or do I need a lawyer?

Uncertainty also does not count.

• I don’t know if I need one.
• I don’t know if I should talk without a lawyer.
• Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.
• I think it would be a good idea for me to get an attorney.
• I guess you better get me a lawyer.
• I think I would like to talk to a lawyer.

Remember also that an attorney cannot invoke for her client, the client must invoke – personally. Also, the suspect telling you he has a lawyer is not an invocation. Also, as covered in a previous training bulletin, the Supreme Court held in Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) 556 U.S. 778, just because a suspect has representation and may have appeared in court does not bar potential questioning.

If you are unclear about the intention of the suspect due to the ambiguity or confused nature of what they said in response to whether they wish to speak, follow up. Your follow up cannot be a ruse to keep talking after an unambiguous invocation but is valid when the suspect is unclear.

You may avoid the reference to an attorney or silence by the suspect by using an implied waiver. The Supreme Court, also in Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 130 S.Ct. 2250, reaffirmed that implied waivers are valid once a suspect has been informed and validly waived her rights.

If the suspect does invoke, give him or her your business card with the invitation to speak in the future. Do not pressure the suspect to call you but provide the opportunity, because if the suspect reinitiates contact with you, you may question that suspect after getting a valid Miranda waiver.


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

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • 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