[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
Following the death of a minor in a vehicle accident, the defendant was given his Miranda rights and questioned by officers. The defendant was suspected of being the driver of the vehicle. While he denied driving the vehicle, the defendant admitted to furnishing alcohol to the minor. He was arrested for furnishing alcohol to a minor and again informed of his Miranda rights. Upon being told that he was suspected of being the driver of the vehicle, the defendant invoked his right to counsel and the conversation ended. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was being transported to the county jail, when he asked an officer, โWell, what is going to happen to me now?โ The officer reminded the defendant he did not have to speak to the police and that if he chose to do so it would have to be of his free will. The defendant stated that he understood and a discussion followed in which the officer suggested that the defendant take a polygraph examination. The defendant agreed. The next day, before the polygraph examination, the defendant was read his Miranda warnings for a third time. When the polygraph examiner stated he did not believe the defendant was being truthful, the defendant admitted to driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal accident.Whether there exist circumstances in which the government can continue to interrogate a defendant that has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel?
Whether there exist circumstances in which the government can continue to interrogate a defendant that has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel?
Yes. If the defendant initiated the conversation with the government after invoking his right, the interrogation can resume.
The Court held that once a suspect invokes his right to counsel, that request must be strictly honored and all questioning must cease. Only after the suspect โinitiates further communication, exchanges, or conversation with the policeโ can further interrogation take place. In other words, โbefore a suspect in custody can be subjected to further interrogation after he requests an attorney, there must be a showing that the โsuspect himself initiates dialogue with the authorities.โโ In this case, the defendantโs question to the officer, โWell, what is going to happen to me now?โ showed a clear desire on the defendantโs part โfor a generalized discussion about the investigation.โ The defendantโs comment was distinct from some of the routine questions that necessarily arise when a suspect is in custody, such as a request to use the bathroom. Even if the accused initiates a conversation, the government still bears the burden of showing that the suspect waived his right to have counsel present.
462 U.S. 1039, 103 S. Ct. 2830 (1983)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved