Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case,
I
On January 19, 1976, a sworn complaint was filed against Edwards in Arizona state court charging him with robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder.
At 9:15 the next morning, two detectives, colleagues of the officer who had interrogated Edwards the previous night, came to the jail and asked to see Edwards. When the detention officer informed Edwards that the detectives wished to speak with him, he replied that he did not want to talk to anyone. The guard told him that “he had” to talk and then took him to meet with the detectives. The officers identified themselves, stated they wanted to talk to him, and informed him of his Miranda rights. Edwards was willing to talk, but he first wanted to hear the taped statement of the alleged accomplice who had implicated him.
Prior to trial, Edwards moved to suppress his confession on the ground that his Miranda rights had been violated when the officers returned to question him after he had invoked his right to counsel. The trial court initially granted
On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Edwards had invoked both his right to remain silent and his right to counsel during the interrogation conducted on the night of January 19.
Because the use of Edward’s confession against him at his trial violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, we reverse the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Court determined that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ prohibition against compelled self-incrimination required that custodial interrogation be
Miranda thus declared that an accused has a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Here, the critical facts as found by the Arizona Supreme Court are that Edwards asserted his right to counsel and his right to remain silent on January 19, but that the police, without furnishing him сounsel, returned the next morning to confront him and as a result of the meeting secured incriminating oral admissions. Contrary to the holdings of the state courts, Edwards insists that having exercised his right on the 19th to have counsel present during interrogation, he did not validly waive that right on the 20th. For the following reasons, we agree.
First, the Arizona Supreme Court .applied an erroneous standard for determining waiver where the accused has specifically invoked his right to counsel. It is reasonably clear under our cases that wаivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case “upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst,
Considering the proceedings in the state courts in the light of this standard, we note that in denying petitioner’s motion to suppress, the trial court found the admission to have been “voluntary,” App. 3, 95, without separately focusing on whether Edwards had knowingly and intelligently relinquished his right to counsel. The Arizona Supreme Court, in a section of its opinion entitled “Voluntariness of Waiver,” stated that in Arizona, confessions are prima facie involuntary and that the State had the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. The court stated that the issue of voluntariness should be determined based on the totality of the circumstances as it related to whether an accused’s action was “knowing and intelligent and whether his will [was] overborne.”
In referring to the necessity to find Edwards’ confession knowing and intelligent, the State Supreme Court cited Schneckloth v. Bustamante,
Second, although we have held that after initially being advised of his Miranda rights, the accused may himself validly waive his rights and respond to interrogation, see North Carolina v. Butler, supra, at 372-376, the Court has strongly indicated that additional safeguards are necessary when the accused asks for counsel; and we now hold that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.
Miranda itself indicate'd that the assertion of the right to counsel was a significant event and that once exercised by the accused, “the interrоgation must cease until an attorney is present.”
In concluding that the fruits of the interrogation initiated by the police on January 20 could not be used against Edwards, we do not hold or imply that Edwards was powerless to countermand his election or that the authorities cоuld in no event use any incriminating statements made by Edwards prior to his having access to counsel. Had Edwards initiated the meeting on January 20, nothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from merely listening to his voluntary, volunteered statements and using them against him at the trial. The Fifth Amendment right
But this is not what the facts of this case show. Here, the officers conducting the interrogation on the evening of Jan
Accordingly, the holding of the Arizona Supreme Court that Edwards had waived his right to counsel was infirm, and the judgment of that court is reversed.
go Qr^ereg
Notes
The facts stated in text are for the most part taken from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
It appears from the record that the detectives had brought the tape-recording with them.
The trial judge emphasized that the detectives had met with Edwards on January 20, without being requested by Edwards to do so, and concluded that they had ignored his request for counsel made the previous evening. App. 91-93.
The case was State v. Travis,
The jury in the first trial was unable to reach a verdict.
This issue was disputed by the State. The court, while finding that the question was arguable, held that Edwards’ request for an attorney to assist him in negotiating a deal was “sufficiently clear” within the context of the interrogation that it “must be interpreted as a request for counsel and as a request to remain silent until counsel was present.”
We thus need not decide Edwards’ claim that the State deprived him of his right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as construed and applied in Massiah v. United States,
In Brewer v. Williams,
If, as frequently would occur in the course of a meeting initiated by the accused, the conversation is not wholly one-sided, it is likely that the officers will say or do something that clearly would be “interrogation.” In that event, the question would be whether a valid waiver of the right to counsel and the right to silence had occurred, that is, whether the purported waiver was knowing and intelligent and found to be so under the totality of the circumstances, including the necessary fact that the accused, not the police, reopened the dialogue with the authorities.
Various decisions of the Courts of Appeals are to the effect that a valid waiver of an accused’s previously invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel is possible. See, e. g., White v. Finkbeiner,
We need not decide whether there would have been a valid waiver of counsel had the events of January 20 been the first and only interrogation to which Edwards had been subjected. Cf. North Carolina v. Butler,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring in the judgment.
I concur only in the judgment because I do not agree that either any constitutional standard or the holding of Miranda v. Arizona,
“A waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver . . . must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”
Accord, e. g., Fare v. Michael C.,
“When the detention officer told Edwards that the detectives were there to see him, he told the officer that he did not wish to speak to anyone. The officer told him that he had to.”122 Ariz. 206 , 209,594 P. 2d 72 , 75 (1979) (emphasis added).
This is enough for me, and on this record the Supreme Court of Arizona erred in holding that the resumption of interrogation was the product of a voluntary waiver, such as I found to be the situation in both Innis, supra, at 304 (concurring opinion), and Brewer v. Williams,
Concurrence Opinion
with whom Justice Rehnquist joins, concurring in the result.
Although I agree that the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court must be reversed, I do not join the Court’s opinion because I am not sure what it means.
“It is reasonably clear under our cases that waivers of counsel must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.’ Johnson v. Zerbst,304 U. S. 458 , 464 (1938). See Faretta v. California,422 U. S. 806 , 835 (1975); North Carolina v. Butler,441 U. S. 369 , 374-375 (1979); Brewer v. Williams,430 U. S. 387 , 404 (1977); Fare v. Michael C.,442 U. S. 707 , 724-725 (1979).” Ante, at 482-483.
I have thought it settled law, as these cases tell us, that one accused of crime may waive any of the constitutional safeguards — including the right to remain silent, to jury trial, to call witnesses, to cross-examine one’s accusers, to testify in one’s own behalf, and — of course — to have counsel. Whatever the right, the standard for waiver is whether the actor fully understands the right in question and voluntarily intends to relinquish it.
In its opinion today, however, the Court — after reiterating the familiar principles of waiver — goes on to say:
“Wе further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused [has] himself initiate[d] further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Ante, at 484-485 (emphasis added).
In view of the emphasis placed on “initiation,” see also ante, at 485-486, and n. 9, I find the Court’s opinion unclear. If read to create a new per se rule, requiring a threshold inquiry
Perhaps the Court’s opinion can be read as not departing from established doctrine. Accepting the formulation quoted above, two questions are identifiable: (i) was there in fact “interrogation,” see Rhode Island v. Innis,
But few cases will be as clear as this one. Communications between police and a suspect in custody are commonplace. It is useful to contrast the circumstances of this case with typical, аnd permissible, custodial communications between police and a suspect who has asked for counsel. For example, police do not impermissibly “initiate” renewed interrogation by engaging in routine conversations with suspects about unrelated matters. And police legitimately may inquire whether a suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney. E. g., State v. Turner,
In sum, once warnings have been given and the right to counsel has been invoked, the relevant inquiry — whether the suspect now desires to talk to police without counsel — is a question of fact to be determined in light of all of the circumstances. Who “initiated” a conversation may be relevant to the question of waiver, but it is not the sine qua non to the inquiry. The ultimate question is whether there was a free and knowing waiver of counsel before interrogation commenced.
If the Court’s opinion does nothing more than restate these principles, I am in agreement with it. I hesitate to join the opinion only because of what appears to be an undue, and undefined, emphasis on a single element: “initiation.” As Justice White has noted, the Court in Miranda v. Ari
Justice White noted in Michigan v. Mosley:
“Although a recently arrested individual may have indicated an initial desire not to answer questions, he would nonetheless want to know immediately — if it were true — that his ability to explain a particular incriminating fact or to supply an alibi for a particular time period would re-' suit in his immediate release. Similarly, he might wish to know — if it were true — that (1) the case against him was unusually strong and that (2) his immediate cooperation with the authorities in the apprehension and conviction of others or in the recovery of property would redound to his benefit in the form of a reduced charge.”423 U. S., at 109, n. 1 .
In Michigan v. Mosley, of course, the question was whether a suspect who had invoked his right to remain silent later could change his mind and speak to police. The facts of Mosley differ somewhat from the present case because here petitioner had requested counsel. It is nevertheless true in both cases that “a blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statеments or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly irrational obstacles to legitimate police investigative activity, and deprive suspects of an opportunity to make informed and intelligent assessments of their interests.” Id., at 102 (opinion of Stewart, J.).
Such a step should be tahen only if it is demonstrably clear that the traditional waiver standard is ineffective. There is no indication, in the multitude of cases that come to us each Term, that Zerbst and its progeny have failed to protect constitutional rights.