[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
Shortly after his arrest in connection with a robbery, the 18-year-old defendant was taken to an interrogation room for questioning by two officers. When the officers informed him that he had a right to his counselโs presence at the interrogation, the accused responded โUh, yeah. Iโd like to do that.โ Despite this response, the officers continued with their questioning, and when they subsequently asked the accused whether he wished to talk to them without a lawyer being present, the accused responded โYeah and no, uh, I donโt know whatโs what, really,โ and โAll right. Iโll talk to you then.โ The defendant then told the officers that he knew in advance about the planned robbery but claimed that he was not a participant. After considerable probing, the defendant confessed, before he reasserted his earlier story that he only knew about the planned crime. Upon further questioning, the defendant again requested a lawyer saying โI wanta get a lawyer.โ This time the officers honored the request and terminated the interrogation.
Whether the defendantโs initial request for counsel was ambiguous in light of his responses to further police questioning?
No. The defendantโs responses to continued government questioning did not render his initial request for counsel ambiguous under rule that all questioning must cease after an accused requests counsel.
The Court held that the accusedโs initial request for counsel when he stated โUh, yeah. Iโd like to do that,โ was not ambiguous. The officers should have terminated their questioning at that point. The defendantโs post-request responses to further interrogation could not be used to cast doubt on the clarity of his initial request for counsel. A valid waiver of an accusedโs right to have his counsel present during interrogation cannot be established by showing only that the accused responded to further government-initiated custodial interrogation.
469 U.S. 91, 105 S. Ct. 490 (1984)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved