My CCL judge suppressed a video today after a proper Miranda. In the car on the way to the jail, the defendant is arguing that she had nothing to drink and was therefore not intoxicated (a drug DWI that I posted about for a different question). He responded that they would do some more tests at the jail and find out. She was rambling and complaining and asking more questions and among other things said, "Whatever, I'm not doing nothing without an attorney." The officer said, "So you won't submit to a urine test?" to which she replied, "Whatever, you're not my probation officer." She continued talking to him, asking him questions, but he never asks her any questions until the TLE 1-A which she refuses. THE POINT: The judge alluded more than once to the "Edwards v. Arizona" issue talking about her "request for an attorney." Anyone have this cite? The judge suppressed the entire audio portion of the video after that "request for an attorney".....even though there was no interrogation to be found. I couldn't find that case in Lexis....Other cases that may be helpful? Her words--rambling and slurred are part of our evidence, so would like that portion of the video to remain, if possible.

Also, she told the jailer that she was under the influence of drugs, but they purged their videos and don't have it anymore. Any way I can show that the medical questionnaire asked at the jail are not under this Edwards case, whatever it may be, or perhaps that it's not interrogation, just routine questions??

I emailed the case to you from Westlaw; let me know if you don't get it.

Thanks, I thought it sounded familiar from con law class in law school. Got it....now the question is 1. did my defendant unequivocally invoke her right to an attorney and 2. if so, was she interrogated? She rambles non-stop, and the officer really only responds to her when she gets loud. What I want to show is the rambling itself, with no interrogation at all.

I love this quote from Edwards v. Arizona:

"In concluding that the fruits of the interrogation initiated by the police on January 20 could not be used against Edwards, we do not hold or imply that Edwards was powerless to countermand his election or that the authorities could in no event use any incriminating statements made by Edwards prior to his having access to counsel. Had Edwards initiated the meeting on January 20, nothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from merely listening to his voluntary, volunteered statements and using them against him at the trial. The Fifth Amendment right identified in Miranda is the right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation. Absent such interrogation, there would have been no infringement of the right that Edwards invoked and there would be no occasion to determine whether there had been a valid waiver. Rhode Island v. Innis, supra, makes this sufficiently clear."

What you described sounds exactly like the Supreme Court's description of situations where no interrogation actually occurred!

Janette A

I think so, too, Janette. Those words sound like my exact situation. Thanks for the other case reference.