On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer, concerning the amount of time law enforcement must wait before re-initiating questioning after a citizen has invoked the right to counsel. A law enforcement officer went to see defendant Shatzer who was in custody for one offense, in order to question Shatzer about his possible involvement in another offense, sexual abuse of his son. Shatzer refused to talk without an attorney. The investigative file on the sexual abuse of the son was closed. Shatzer then was released back into the general prison population. Two and one half years later, another investigator goes to question Shatner again about the sexual abuse of his son. Shatzer waives his rights and makes incriminating statements.
Traditionally, under Edwards v. Arizona, law enforcement officers are prohibited from any further interrogation of a defendant who has invoked the right to the presence of an attorney during police questioning. However, the Supreme Court found that two and one half years after a break in Miranda custody is sufficient to dissipate the coercive effects of police custody. Actually, the Supreme Court went further and held that two weeks after a break in Miranda custody is sufficient. Thus, when a citizen in police custody invokes his or her right to have an attorney present during questioning, the citizen becomes fair game for further attempts at interrogation two weeks after a break in Miranda custody. Or in Justice Scalia's parlance, the Edwards protective umbrella remains open for two weeks after the break in Miranda custody. After that, it is up to the citizen to re-invoke rights.
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the concept that a person in a prison is not in custody for Miranda purposes if the person is in general population.
