United States v. Hamidullin, 114 F. Supp. 3d 388

Defendant Irek Ilgiz Hamidullin was detained after an alleged armed attack in Afghanistan and interviewed by FBI agents 15 times between March 29 and April 17, 2010; recordings and transcripts exist.
Before each interrogation the Defendant received Miranda warnings and acknowledged understanding them; he often selectively answered some topics and refused others.
The April 17, 2010 interview focused on a recovered pre-attack video; the disputed segments involve (1) the Defendant saying he must speak with his “practitioner” before talking about the video and (2) the Defendant asking to be sent back to his cell, stating “you said if I don’t want to talk with you, I don’t have to.”
Government contended those statements were ambiguous/equivocal (a tactical ploy tied to earlier demands the Defendant had made) and did not trigger Edwards/Miranda protections requiring cessation of questioning.
The Defendant argued the statements were clear invocations of the right to counsel and the right to remain silent, so subsequent statements about the video should be suppressed.
The court reviewed the recorded interview in context, including the Defendant’s prior conduct (repeated selective waivers and prior demands), and denied the Motion to Suppress.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant unambiguously invoked right to counsel by saying he must speak with his “practitioner” before talking about the video	Statement unambiguously requested counsel and required interrogation to stop	Phrase was a clear invocation of counsel and Edwards protection applied	Court held invocation was ambiguous/equivocal given context and prior demands; agents were not required to stop
Whether Defendant invoked right to remain silent when asked about the video/flag and when he asked to be sent to his cell	Statements showed he asserted right to remain silent and interrogation continuation violated Miranda	Statements were tactical/selective; Defendant re-initiated or clarified and waived silence as to the video	Court held any invocation was equivocal and/or was waived when Defendant re-engaged; statements admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings and right to counsel/silence)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (invocation must be unambiguous; waiver may be implied from conduct)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after clear request for counsel)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (ambiguous or equivocal requests for counsel do not require cessation)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (right to cut off questioning must be scrupulously honored; selective waiver allowed)
Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (focus on events prior to purported invocation when assessing clarity)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for certain purposes if reliable)
Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523 (Miranda prophylaxis designed to prevent subtle compulsion)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (invocation requires a statement reasonably construed as desire for counsel)
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (Miranda/Edwards protect choice not to speak outside lawyer's presence)