State of Missouri v. David K. Holman, 2016 Mo. LEXIS 496

Early morning incident: defendant David K. Holman was shot by his wife; he then fatally shot her and called 911.
Deputies arrived; Holman was handcuffed, Mirandized by Deputy Devost, and later taken to the hospital; while at the scene he repeatedly spoke to officers about the shooting.
Deputies asked Holman to sign a consent-to-search form; Holman replied, “I ain’t signing shit without my attorney.” Deputies stopped pursuing the consent and Devost left the scene.
Holman was later transported to jail; the next morning Detective McElroy reread Miranda warnings, Holman waived and spoke with her; statements from that interview were used by the State.
Holman moved to suppress post-Miranda statements, arguing he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; the trial court granted suppression.
The State appealed; the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding Holman did not clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to counsel by refusing to sign the consent form and that the subsequent interview was lawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holman)	Held
Whether Holman’s statement refusing to sign a consent-to-search form invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel	Refusal to sign referencing an attorney was an invocation of the right to counsel, so subsequent statements should be suppressed	Saying he wouldn’t sign without his attorney was an invocation of the right to counsel that required cessation of interrogation	Court: Not an invocation. A refusal to sign consent is not a clear, equivocal-free request for counsel; a reasonable officer would not interpret it as invoking Miranda rights
Whether questioning the next day after rereading Miranda and obtaining a waiver violated the Fifth Amendment	If the initial statement invoked counsel, any later questioning without counsel present violated Edwards/Davis protections	Even if the earlier remark was a limited invocation, it applied only to signing the consent; rereading Miranda and obtaining a new waiver allowed lawful questioning	Court: Lawful. No clear invocation occurred; at most a limited refusal to sign, which police honored; subsequent Miranda rereading and waiver made the later interview admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (prophylactic rules protecting Fifth Amendment rights during custodial interrogation)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (clarity requirement for invocation of right to counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease questioning after invocation of counsel)
Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (partial or limited invocation of rights may be valid for specific purposes)
State v. Metz, 43 S.W.3d 374 (consent to search is not an interrogation under Miranda)
Lammers v. State, 479 S.W.3d 624 (custodial interrogation standard)
State v. Collings, 450 S.W.3d 741 (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation principles)
United States v. Payne, 119 F.3d 637 (consent requests differ from Miranda interrogation)