After a subject has properly invoked their Miranda rights, all questioning by the police must cease immediately. Depending on the right invoked, however, the police may resume questioning again. If the right invoked is the right to remain silent, then the police may resume questioning after (1) the officer’s honored the initial request, (2) a significant time has passed, and (3) the resumed questioning is about a different crime. See Mosley. If the right invoked is the right to counsel, the police must cease questioning entirely (and cannot resume) until counsel has arrived or the subject initiates additional questioning. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

Globe v. State

877 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2004).


Whether the subject’s invocation of Miranda right to remain silent was “scrupulously honored.”


After a subject invokes their Miranda rights, they must be scrupulously honored. To be scrupulously honored, the court considers whether:

  1. The officer ceased questioning immediately
  2. There was a significant time gap before returning to questioning
  3. Miranda warning were provided at the initial and reinstated questioning
  4. The questioning took place in another location
  5. And whether the reinstated questioning concerns another crime.

No factor is dispositive and the court considers all the factors based on the totality of the circumstances. See Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975); Henry v. State, 574 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1991).


The officers scrupulously honored Globe’s invocation, affirmed.


Globe snuck into a fellow inmate’s cell and killed him. Upon being taken for questioning, Globe invoked his right to remain silent, but not the right to receive counsel. Immediately, the guard stopped questioning. About seven hours later, Globe was overheard saying that an inmate didn’t need to be in prison. When asked why, Globe said the whole place was messed up. At this point, the officer asked if he wanted to give a statement and read Globe his rights. Globe waived his rights and then proceeded to give details about planning to and actually killing the inmate.

At trial, the court would not suppress the statements.


All but one of the factors here was in effect. Globe had his rights read to him twice, questioning ceased when he invoked the right to remain silent, there was a significant time gap, and the questioning took place in another location. The only difference was that the questioning was regarding the same crime. Four out of Five is sufficient to say the officers scrupulously honored Globe’s invocation.

Benjamin v. State

116 So. 3d 115 (Miss. 2013).


Whether the police continued to interrogate after Miranda rights were invoked.


When a subject invokes the right to counsel, questioning must cease until counsel appears unless the subject knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives their rights and initiates conversation with the officers. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).


Officers continued to interrogate Benjamin after he requested counsel, reversed.


Benjamin is a 14 year old who was taken into questioning regarding a capital charge for shooting a victim at a gas station. Accompanied by his mother, the police officers read Benjamin his rights and he indicated that he wished to speak to the juvenile defense attorney. Upon being informed that this was a different matter (capital charge) and doubting whether the attorney could arrive that day, Benjamin become worried that he would be required to stay overnight. His mother was also worried about affording an attorney and thought the best way to help Benjamin was for him to waive his right and speak.

Addressing Benjamin’s mother, the officers said that they could not speak to Benjamin unless he waived his right and the officer’s could not pressure him into doing so. After a few minutes alone together, Benjamin’s mother indicated that Benjamin was ready to speak.

Before the interrogation began, Benjamin asked if speaking would allow him to go home that evening. In response, the officers told him it depended on what he said (this was untrue because it was likely he would stay overnight regardless of his words). At this point, Benjamin waived his rights and told the officers he had been at a fair. This is the story he stuck to throughout the remainder of the interview.


Following the Innis rule, it is clear that an interrogation took place. After Benjamin invoked his rights, the officers turned to the mother (who they knew wanted Benjamin to speak), and gave her instructions on what needed to be done for him to speak. She followed these instructions, thus inducing Benjamin’s speech. Additionally, Benjamin was young and immature; his main concern for a capital offense was whether he needed to stay in jail overnight. With this concern in mind, the officers were easily able to lie and allow Benjamin to speak, who believed speaking could send him home.

The dissent argues that the result was no different than if the officers had abruptly stopped asking right away. Additionally, the defendant knew his rights and could knowingly waive them (because he was familiar with the court system).

Additional Notes

If officer’s wish to reinstate conversations after the subject has invoked the right to counsel, they can do so after the subject has left custody and wait for at least 14 days. See Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010).


The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.

Will Laursen

Show Your Support


Table of Contents