Edwards v. Arizona

Edwards v. Arizona was a 1981 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, police must cease custodial interrogation. Re-interrogation is only permissible once defendant's counsel has been made available to him, or he himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Statements obtained in violation of this rule are a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

Background
Edwards was arrested at his home on charges of robbery, burglary, and first-degree murder. Following his arrest, at the police station, he was informed of his Miranda rights. Edwards stated he understood his rights, and was willing to submit to questioning. After being told that another suspect was arrested in connection with the same crime, Edwards denied involvement and then sought to "make a deal." Edwards then proceeded to call a county attorney and shortly afterwards he said to his interrogator: "I want an attorney before making a deal." Immediately, the questioning ceased and Edwards was taken to county jail. The following morning, two detectives came to see him stating that they wanted to talk to him. At first Edwards resisted, but he was told he had to talk to the detectives. The officers informed him of his Miranda rights, and obtained a confession from him. At trial, Edwards sought to suppress his confession. The lower court and the Arizona Supreme Court denied the motion.

Result
The court held that a waiver of the right to counsel, once invoked, not only must be voluntary, but also must constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a known right or privilege. The fact that Edwards confessed after being read his Miranda rights does not demonstrate that he understood right to counsel and intelligently and knowingly relinquished it. Once the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment has been invoked, a valid waiver cannot be shown just by the accused responding to interrogations despite Miranda warning's having been read. In Rhode Island v. Innis, the court clarifies the meaning of "interrogation."