Michigan v. Mosley

In answering this question, the Court relied almost entirely on a single passage from their decision in Miranda v. Arizona: “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.” The Miranda decision never addressed “under what circumstances, if any, a resumption of questioning is permissible.” What was clear, however, was that nothing in the Miranda opinion “can sensibly be read to create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer on any subject, once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent.”

The Court concluded “that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was ‘scrupulously honored.’” In this case, a review of the circumstances led the Court to hold that the defendant’s right to cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored.” First, before his initial interrogation, the defendant was fully informed of his Miranda rights, orally acknowledged an understanding of those rights, and signed a notification certificate. Second, when the defendant stated that he did not wish to answer questions about the robberies, all questioning immediately ceased. Third, a significant period of time (more than two hours) passed before a different officer, in a different location, regarding a different crime, next questioned the defendant. Fourth, before his second interview, the defendant was again fully advised of his Miranda rights.