Phillips v. State, 40 A.3d 25

Phillips was arrested for murder and armed robbery in Worcester County and interrogated custodially at a State Police barrack.
After about 45 minutes of questioning, Phillips expressed a desire to consult an attorney.
Detectives continued questioning; Phillips later agreed to continue talking and made incriminating statements.
The Miranda waiver was signed but the state of waiver is disputed; the first officer left, the second reentered, and the tape-recorded interrogation followed.
The circuit court denied suppression; the Court of Special Appeals remanded for credit/time considerations; the Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide Edwards-related suppression questions.
The court must independently assess whether the post-invocation conversation was the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation under Edwards and related authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-invocation discussion constitutes interrogation	Phillips argues continuation violated Edwards' prohibition on after-invocation questioning	State contends brief, non-coercive talk after invocation is permissible	Yes; the conversation was the functional equivalent of interrogation and should be suppressed
Whether Phillips waived his right to counsel implicitly	Phillips initially waived based on conduct; implicit waiver acceptable	Waiver must be voluntary and knowable; explicit waiver not required	Implicit waiver valid; initial waiver established for purposes of this case

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (limits police interrogation after counsel is requested until counsel is available)
Blake v. State, 381 Md. 218 (Md. 2004) (post-invocation remarks may be coercive if designed to induce talk)
Ballard v. State, 420 Md. 480 (Md. 2011) ( Edwards rule to prevent badgering; safeguards against coercion)
People v. Bradshaw, 156 P.3d 452 (Colo. 2007) (post-invocation questioning can violate right to counsel)
State v. Gonzalez, 302 Conn. 287, 25 A.3d 648 (Conn. 2011) (conversation after asking for an attorney may be equivalent to interrogation)