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

Maryland v. Shatzer Review

A recent case out of Merced, California, emphasizes again, how important it is for law enforcement officers to be up to date on the law. If you are reading the Third Degree Communications “Legal Update” you are taking positive steps to insure a reversal does not occur in one of your cases like it did in People v. Bridgeford 2015 DJDAR 11857.


Bridgeford moved to suppress statements he made in two separate interviews. Both motions were denied in the trial court. The first interview commenced at around 8:45 a.m. at the police department. The interview ended when Bridgeford invoked his right to an attorney. He was released from custody after the interview. Later that same day, officers developed additional probable cause and Bridgeford was rearrested about 3 hours after the initial interview. Bridgeford and a co-conspirator were placed in the same room. The co-defendant told Bridgeford that law enforcement had the murder weapon and knew Bridgeford was involved. Officer reentered the room, Bridgeford was Mirandized, and agreed to talk. After three minutes and initially denying he was involved in the homicides, Bridgeford confessed to two murders.


Defendant argued that the second interview was barred by the Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) 59 U.S. 98. The appellate court agreed.

Legal Knowledge You Need

Shatzer held that law enforcement must wait 14 days before it may resume questioning after a suspect has invoked his or her right to counsel and is released from Miranda custody. There are exceptions to this rule. If the suspect reinitiates questioning officers do not have to wait 14 days. Also, if the suspect has an attorney present and chooses to answer questions, officers do not have to wait 14 days to question. Remember, the 14 day clock begins when the suspect is released from Miranda custody.

The court found that because the first interview was custodial (defendant at substation, defendant handcuffed), even though he came voluntarily, officers needed to wait 14 days to question the suspect again.

The prosecution argued that Bridgeford initiated the second interview. The suspect said that his grandmother told him in the intervening three hours that he should not have invoked. The court found here that the officers went to defendant’s work, handcuffed him, searched for weapons, and transported him back to the station. It was clear to the court that this was not a suspect reinitiation.

Unfortunately for the officers in this case, there is no way they could have known about the rule in Shatzer at the time of this case. Shatzer was decided after the arrests and interviews in this case. Shatzer was applied retroactively to this case. All we can do in law enforcement is be up to date on the law so the reversal of a murder conviction doesn’t occur because we didn’t know the law.





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

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • 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
  • 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 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
  • 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