People v. White, 823 N.W.2d 118

Defendant charged with first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a felony arising from Willard’s death.
After arrest, defendant received Miranda warnings and invoked the right to remain silent.
Detective Stiles told defendant he would sign a waiver only if he talked; defendant declined and stated he did not want to speak.
Detective then made a general remark about the gun’s location and potential harm, while looking at defendant.
Trial court suppressed defendant’s statement as the functional equivalent of interrogation after invocation; appellate panel reversed and remanded.
This appeal addresses whether the detective’s remark was the functional equivalent of interrogation under Innis and related standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detective’s remark after invocation was express questioning	Kadeem—yes, it invited a response	State—no express questioning occurred	No express questioning found
Whether remark constitutes the functional equivalent of interrogation under Innis	Kadeem—remark was designed to elicit incriminating response	State—remark not reasonably likely to elicit response	Remark not the functional equivalent under Innis
Applicable standard of review for suppression ruling	Court should review express questioning findings de novo	Findings reviewed for clear error; law de novo	Court applied appropriate standards; de novo review of ultimate constitutional conclusion
Whether public safety exception (Quarles) applies	Not argued given facts	Not implicated by facts	Not implicated by the facts

Rhode Island v Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (defined interrogation and functional equivalence under Miranda)
Arizona v Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1987) (addressed disclosure of information post-arrest without interrogation)
Kowalski v. Kowalski, 230 Mich. App. 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (recognizes information sharing post-invocation may not be interrogation)