United States v. Abdallah, 196 F. Supp. 3d 599

On April 20, 2015, Nader Abdallah was arrested in an investigation for distributing a synthetic cannabinoid (“spice”) and taken to Newport News Police HQ.
During initial Miranda warnings, Abdallah interrupted the agent and said he “wasn’t going to say anything at all.”
The agent completed the Miranda warning, asked if Abdallah knew why he was under arrest, repeated the warnings, explained the charges, and obtained a statement after Abdallah waived rights.
Abdallah moved to suppress his statements as involuntary and obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights; the Government opposed.
At the suppression hearing, agents testified Abdallah appeared lucid, jovial, and denied recent drug use; they read Miranda twice and obtained an express waiver before substantive questioning.
The court denied the motion to suppress, finding Abdallah’s interruption was ambiguous and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Abdallah unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent and, if so, whether subsequent statements must be suppressed	Abdallah argues his interruption — “I’m not going to say anything at all” — was a clear invocation and police should have ceased questioning; any later statements were product of continued interrogation and should be suppressed	Government contends the interruption was ambiguous, Miranda had not been completed when he spoke, agents re-Mirandized him, and Abdallah then knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights	Court held the statement was ambiguous, Abdallah was re-warned, waived knowingly and voluntarily, and his statements were admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes requirement to warn suspects of right to remain silent and counsel)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (silence alone does not constitute invocation of right to remain silent)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (once right to cut off questioning is invoked, interrogation must cease; later interrogation permissible if right is scrupulously honored)
Weeks v. Angelone, 176 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 1999) (factors for assessing whether invocation was honored under Mosley)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (waiver of Miranda examined under totality of the circumstances)
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) (waiver may be implied from conduct)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (government bears burden to show statement not product of custodial interrogation without Miranda)
United States v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing voluntariness and knowing waiver standards)