United States v. Oquendo-Rivas, 750 F.3d 12

Shootout at a bar led PRPD officers to a nearby house where they encountered David Oquendo and others; Oquendo displayed a handgun and fled into the house. Officers observed him discard a handgun and later recovered additional firearms from co-defendant Ortiz, one with an obliterated serial number.
Officers subdued and restrained Oquendo inside the house; while detained but before formal arrest, Officer Rodríguez asked if Oquendo had a gun license, and Oquendo replied “no.”
After formal arrest, Oquendo was verbally given Miranda warnings. At the station, a PRPD form was presented; Oquendo declined to make a statement and signed the form.
About 20 minutes later an ATF agent (Torres) entered with another Miranda form; Oquendo wrote in Spanish, “I do not understand this, my lawyer speaks.” Agent Torres asked for clarification; Oquendo said he was willing to speak without a lawyer but did not want to discuss the deaths. He then circled the waiver, signed it, and made inculpatory statements about Ortiz’s possession of the gun with no serial number.
District court denied suppression of the statements; on appeal Oquendo argued (1) his pre-Miranda reply to Officer Rodríguez should be suppressed, (2) the 20-minute interval before Torres’s questioning violated his right to remain silent, and (3) his written note was an unambiguous request for counsel that required cessation of questioning. The First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-Miranda statement to Officer Rodríguez ("no" to license) must be suppressed	Government: statement admissible / not timely raised on appeal	Oquendo: he was in custodial interrogation before Miranda warnings, so statement should be suppressed	Waived under Rule 12(e); Court declined to address merits and found waiver
Whether resumption of questioning ~20 minutes after Oquendo declined to speak violated right to remain silent	Oquendo: 20 minutes is too short; his right to cut off questioning was not scrupulously honored	Government: Mosley factors satisfied (different officer, re-Mirandized, no coercion)	No violation; totality of circumstances showed right to cut off questioning preserved
Whether Oquendo’s written note (“I do not understand this, my lawyer speaks”) was an unambiguous invocation of right to counsel	Oquendo: note equaled a request for counsel, requiring cessation per Edwards	Government: statement ambiguous; officer sought clarification and obtained an express waiver before questioning	Not an unambiguous request; Davis standard applied—officer properly clarified and questioning proceeded
Whether statements made after clarification and waiver were admissible	Oquendo: subsequent statements tainted by prior violations	Government: valid waiver after clarification and re-Miranda; scope-limited questioning honored	Statements admissible; suppression properly denied

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (establishes custodial interrogation custodial-test principles)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (sets Mosley factors for resuming interrogation after invocation of right to remain silent)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (request for counsel requires cessation of questioning until counsel present)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous; ambiguous statements permit clarification)
United States v. Barone, 968 F.2d 1378 (discusses coercive practices and Mosley application)
United States v. Andrade, 135 F.3d 104 (First Circuit on reasonable resumption intervals post-invocation)
Obershaw v. Lanman, 453 F.3d 56 (explains objective standard for identifying requests for counsel)
United States v. Lugo Guerrero, 524 F.3d 5 (applies Mosley factors and totality-of-circumstances test)
United States v. Thongsophaporn, 503 F.3d 51 (totality-of-circumstances on voluntariness and waiver)