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

Invoking Right to Silence: Must Be Unambiguous

A Great New Case for Law Enforcement on Miranda

The United States Supreme Court this week clarified when a suspect invokes Miranda. Quite simply, it is an excellent decision that removes ambiguity and makes it easier for you, the investigator, to know when a suspect has invoked his right to remain silent.

The USSC held, in Berghuls v. Thompkins, 2010 DJDAR 8047, that a suspect’s right to silence must be invoked “unambiguously.” The Court brought into line the invocation of the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. In this decision, the Court eliminated any concern about the legality of implied waivers. If a suspect wants to remain silent, that suspect has to tell you that she wants to remain silent. Consequently, if the suspect makes a voluntary statement without unambiguously invoking the right to remain silent or to an attorney, that statement is admissible.

Miranda Warnings

Van Chester Thompkins shot a victim to death and another victim who recovered from his injuries in Michigan. Approximately a year after the shooting Thompkins was arrested in Ohio. Detectives went to Ohio to interrogate him. The questioning took about three hours. The detectives presented Thompkins with a Miranda form and had him read the final paragraph stating that he had the right to remain silent and the right to talk with a lawyer while he was being questioned. They had Thompkins read the form to insure he spoke and could read English. Thompkins declined to sign the form.


The officers began an interrogation. At no time did Thompkins say he wanted to remain silent, that he did not wish to speak, or that he wanted a lawyer. Significantly, Thompkins was mostly silent during the three hour interrogation. He would occasionally say, “yeah,” “no,” or nod his head. At around two hours and forty five minutes into the interrogation the officer asked him whether he “believed in God, and whether he prayed to God for shooting that boy down.” Thompkins said “yes.” Thompkins refused to sign a written confession and the interview ended fifteen minutes later.


At trial, Thompkins argued that he had invoked his right to remain silent and that the statement was involuntary. Thompkins argued that because he did not say anything for a sufficient period, that constituted an invocation of his right to remain silent.



The Court looked to the rule stated in Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, which held that an accused must “unambiguously” invoke his/her right to an attorney. If an accused makes a statement that is ambiguous or equivocal or says nothing, officers are not required to end the interrogation or even clarify the suspect’s desires.

The Court found that there was no good reason for the Davis rule not to apply to the invocation of the right to remain silent. The Court held that because Thompkins did not say he wished to remain silent or did not wish to speak to the officers, he had not invoked the right to remain silent.


The Court went on to determine whether the statement that Thompkins did make was voluntary. The Court decided that an express waiver is not required for a statement to be voluntary. The Court found that an “implicit waiver” is sufficient to admit a statement into evidence.

The Court set forth a two prong test:

One, the prosecution has to show that a Miranda warning was given and the accused gave a voluntary statement. But the Court made clear that is not enough to lead to admissibility.

Two, the prosecution must also show that the accused understood the rights.

When these two things are shown, an implied waiver is legally sufficient to allow a suspect’s statement into evidence.

Thompkins read the warnings, he could understand English, he answered the question about God, all indicated that Thompkins knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.

The Court explicitly held that the after giving a Miranda rights, police may interrogate a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his Miranda rights.

In sum, a great case for investigators.

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

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

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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