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

Shatzer v. Maryland Bites Again

Shatzer v. Maryland imposed a strict requirement on officers once a suspect invoked her right to counsel. Officers MUST wait 14 days to reinitiate questioning after a suspect is released from Miranda custody. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the 14 day period was arbitrary but seemed like a sufficient amount of time for a suspect to contact an attorney and be free of the pressure of Miranda Custody. The Supreme Court also felt the 14 day requirement would alleviate any game playing where officers release a suspect who invoked merely to re-arrest that individual a short time later to again Mirandize him and attempt to take a statement.

A California Court of Appeal in People v. Bridgeford (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 887, had the occasion to address a similar concern. The wrinkle in Bridgeford was that the officers had acted in good faith. There was no attempt to game the system…the Court of Appeals held the 14 day requirement is alive and well, almost without exception.


There were two incidents of note. In the first, three individuals wearing masks committed a home invasion robbery. The victim was awake. During the robbery one of the suspects used Bridgeford’s first name. The victim immediately recognized Bridgeford because they grew up together, he knew him, Bridgeford had a distinct voice and body type, they lived close to one another, and had played basketball together. Typical of a dumb criminal, Bridgeford was identified as one of the three robbers because he robbed a friend.

The second home invasion ended in a double murder. The home was located next to the highway. The two victims were surenos, Bridgeford a norteno. Officers identified the shot gun shells discarded in the murder and knew they were sold at a local Walmart. Not surprisingly when the Officers viewed Walmart surveillance video they saw Bridgeford and accomplices in Walmart looking at ammunition. They saw two reach behind the counter unseen by the Walmart employee and walk out with a bag filled with something. No ammunition was sold that day from Walmart.

Two days after the first home invasion and one day after the double murder the Police Chief went to Bridgeford’s house to request consent to search for evidence from the first home invasion. The Chief asked Bridgeford whether Bridgeford knew why he was there. Bridgeford responded “for the stuff that happened on the highway.” The Chief was surprised as he was not there on the murder case.

A week later a co-defendant’s house was searched and the rifle used in the homicide case was recovered.


Officers brought Bridgeford to the police station in handcuffs. Although not told he was under arrest, it was clear he was. Bridgeford immediately invoked his right to counsel. Bridgeford was released as officers felt they did not have enough information to hold Bridgeford for the homicides.

Officers developed additional probable cause to arrest Bridgeford for the double murders and three hours later re-arrested Bridgeford. The transcript below shows Bridgeford waived and gave a statement.

Again, the Court of Appeal held that literal compliance with Shatzer is demanded. There may, in the future, be a case where officers act in good faith and need to arrest and question someone who has previously invoked within the 14 day period where a court will find that the statement doesn’t violate Shatzer. This is not that case. It goes without saying that once probable cause to arrest a murder suspect is developed that person must be removed from the streets. An unintended consequence of Shatzer may be that officers may be forced to wait two weeks to interview the suspect or abstain altogether. That is an unacceptable consequence and perhaps another court may review such a situation and find an exception to Shatzer. Until then, literal compliance with the dictates of Shatzer is required.


  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

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