State v. Nichols, 390 P.3d 1001

Defendant (Nichols) was arrested on a sealed Oregon murder indictment at SFO after returning from China; detectives read Miranda warnings and defendant indicated understanding.
During an early custodial interview (while handcuffed and sleep-deprived), detectives asked about the victim’s death; Nichols replied, “It’s not something I want to talk about.”
The detectives continued questioning for about three hours; Nichols thereafter made additional statements that were later used by the state.
Nichols moved to suppress statements made after the asserted invocation, arguing violation of Article I, §12 of the Oregon Constitution (state right against compelled self-incrimination).
The trial court granted suppression, concluding the remark was an equivocal invocation that detectives failed to clarify; the State appealed directly to the Oregon Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Nichols unequivocally invoked his Article I, §12 right and the interrogation should have ceased; subsequent questioning violated the state constitution and warranted suppression.

Issue	State's Argument	Nichols' Argument	Held
Whether Nichols’s statement "It’s not something I want to talk about" was an invocation of the right against self-incrimination	Not an invocation; at most reluctance or selective refusal to discuss a topic; even if equivocal, officers need not clarify under Article I, §12	The remark was an invocation (unequivocal or at least equivocal requiring clarification); detectives were required to stop or clarify	The statement, viewed in context, was an unequivocal invocation; officers had to stop the interrogation
If equivocal, whether officers had a duty under Article I, §12 to clarify before continuing	Argues no such duty (invokes Berghuis/Fifth Amendment contrast)	Argues Oregon law requires clarification for equivocal invocations	Court did not decide the general equivocal-clarification rule here because it found the invocation unequivocal
Whether continued questioning after the invocation violated Article I, §12 and required suppression	Continued questioning permissible because no clear invocation	Continued questioning violated Article I, §12 and required suppression of subsequent statements	Continued questioning violated Article I, §12; suppression affirmed

State v. Avila-Nava, 356 Or 600 (2014) (adopted totality-of-circumstances test for invocation and discussed contextual factors)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or 432 (2014) (Miranda warnings and effect of unequivocal invocation under Article I, §12)
State v. Davis, 350 Or 440 (2011) (Article I, §12 protects right to insist police refrain from interrogation after invocation)
State v. James, 339 Or 476 (2005) (burden rules on waiver and subsequent invocation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (U.S. Supreme Court contrast on Fifth Amendment requiring unambiguous invocation)
State v. Kell, 303 Or 89 (1987) (permitting selective answers about some topics and refusal on others)
State v. Smith, 310 Or 1 (1990) (context matters when assessing whether statements amount to invocation)