Arizona v. Roberson (1987)
- Docket
- 87-354
- Decided
- 1987-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the interrogation of a suspect after he has requested counsel regarding a separate investigation violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights? Conclusion: Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for the 6-2 majority. The Supreme Court held that, once a suspect has requested counsel, police cannot interrogate him unless he initiates the contact. The Fifth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s previous rulings on it are meant to serve as a bright-line rule for police officers. The Court also held that Roberson’s request for counsel was because of his discomfort with answering the police’s questions, and there is no reason to assume that discomfort would be case-specific. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that a suspect does not need to be made aware of his Miranda rights more than once. When he has been told that he has the right to an attorney, he can choose whether or not to invoke that right in any investigation. Justice Kennedy argued that the majority created an unnecessary dichotomy between always allowing such statements or always excluding them, when in fact there should be a balance that depends on the situations in each case. This approach would protect law enforcement’s ability to investigate and the suspect’s rights. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist joined in the dissent. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not participate in the discussion or decision of this case.