State v. Andrew M. Edler
350 Wis. 2d 1
Wis.2013Background
- 17-year-old Andrew Edler was interviewed March 30 about a burglary; during questioning he said, “From this point on, I’d like a lawyer here,” and questioning stopped.
- Edler spent a night in jail, met again with detective Urban the next day; Urban did not reopen arson questioning then.
- Edler was released April 1 and had a public defender for the burglary charge.
- On April 20 detectives arrested Edler for arson, placed him in the back of an unmarked car with Detective Urban, and during the drive Edler asked, “Can my attorney be present for this?” Urban replied, “Yes, he can.”
- At the station Urban then read Miranda warnings, Edler waived, and made incriminating statements; Edler moved to suppress post-waiver statements as Fifth Amendment violations.
- The circuit court granted suppression; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) Wisconsin should adopt Shatzer’s 14-day break-in-custody rule and (2) whether Edler’s car-statement unambiguously invoked the right to counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Edler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin should adopt Maryland v. Shatzer’s 14-day break-in-custody rule | Adopt Shatzer: predictable, balances protections and enforcement | Reject Shatzer or expand Wisconsin protections under state constitution to bar reinterrogation unless counsel is present or suspect initiates | Court adopted Shatzer’s 14-day rule; 19-day break meant March 30 invocation did not bar April 20 interrogation |
| Whether Edler’s statement in the squad car (“Can my attorney be present for this?”) was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel | Statement was a question about rights, not necessarily an invocation; State argued ambiguous | It was an unambiguous request; once made, interrogation must cease under Edwards unless counsel is provided or suspect initiates further communication | Court held the statement was an unequivocal, unambiguous invocation; subsequent waiver invalid and statements after that point suppressed |
| Whether Edwards’ presumption barred police reinterrogation absent counsel or initiation after a valid invocation | Shatzer limits Edwards after a 14-day break; otherwise Edwards applies | Edler urged broader protection under Wisconsin Constitution or a totality-of-circumstances test | Court declined to extend Wisconsin protections beyond federal rule; applied Edwards only as revived by the April 20 invocation |
| Whether statements made after the car request but before/after Miranda warnings must be suppressed | Police actions after an invocation were permissible if waiver was valid | Waiver was invalid because police continued interrogation after unequivocal request for counsel | Held suppression required for statements made after the car request because police should have ceased questioning and no counsel was provided and Edler did not reinitiate communication |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial-warning requirements and right to counsel)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after a suspect invokes right to counsel unless counsel is provided or suspect initiates)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (Edwards presumption ends after a 14-day break in custody)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (objective test: invocation must be unambiguous so a reasonable officer would understand it as a request for counsel)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (Miranda is a constitutional rule)
- State v. Jennings, 252 Wis. 2d 228 (Wisconsin adoption of Davis objective standard in evaluating invocation)