Edwards v. Arizona
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
6,928 later cases cite Edwards v. Arizona; 212 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Edwards v. Arizona?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court held that Edwards does not apply retroactively on collateral review to convictions already final when Edwards was decided.
Solem v. Stumes · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Examining Edwards in light of these three factors, we conclude that it should not be applied retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The United States Court of Military Appeals held that a request for counsel made to a foreign official does not trigger Edwards, even where American military police actively cooperated in the investigation.
United States v. Vidal · United States Court of Military Appeals · filed
In short, we conclude that the requirements of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, are not triggered by a request for counsel made to a foreign official.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held that a nonpretextual release from continuous custody dissipates Edwards protection and permits police to reinitiate contact after a substantial opportunity to consult counsel.
State v. Kyger · Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals · filed
After his release from custody on November 14th, the defendant had substantial opportunity to consult with counsel before the November 24th encounter; thus, the Miranda-Edwards taint had dissipated with the passage of time. Because his release was not a pretext used to circumvent Kyger’s constitutional safeguards, police were free to reinitiate contact and investigate further.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth Circuit held Edwards unavailable to a prisoner whose conviction preceded the decision because Edwards's new per se rule does not apply retroactively.
Self v. Collins · Fifth Circuit · filed
The Edwards rule was developed for the Fifth Amendment; but, in Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), it was made applicable to the Sixth as well. "Edwards established a new per se rule and to that extent overruled Johnson v. Zerbst." Solem v. Stumes, 465 U.S. 638, 652 (1984) (Powell, J., concurring). Accordingly, the rule does not apply retroactively and is, therefore, unavailable to Self.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fourth Circuit held that the public-safety exception can apply after a suspect invokes counsel, although it found no immediate danger sufficient to invoke the exception in Mobley's case.
United States v. Delbert Mobley · Fourth Circuit · filed
For this reason, we hold that the public safety exception articulated in Quarles will apply in an Edwards situation as well.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the public-safety exception permits admission of a response to post-invocation questioning prompted by an objectively reasonable immediate danger.
Trice v. United States · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · filed
The public safety exception is limited to the admission of an otherwise suppressible statement taken in violation of Miranda and Edwards. This exception does not relieve the government of its burden to show the statement was voluntary.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit confined Edwards to continuous custody and held that a three-hour release gave Harris sufficient opportunity to consult others before police reinitiated contact.
United States v. Eric Daniel Harris · Eighth Circuit · filed
That phone call took place at least three hours after Harris left the interview room in the local sheriffs office. In light of the circumstances of this case, we conclude that a three-hour break in time defeats Edwards protection, since Harris had ample opportunity to consult his family, friends, or a lawyer.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Court of Appeals of Georgia held that a voluntary statement elicited in violation of Edwards could support a warrant for derivative physical evidence.
Brown v. State · Court of Appeals of Georgia · filed
Based on Casey and the other case law cited above, we conclude that although Brown’s voluntary statement to the detectives was elicited in violation of Miranda and Edwards, the statement could be relied upon by the state in the supporting affidavit in order to obtain the search warrant for the swabs of Brown’s mouth.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Illinois Appellate Court held that Edwards protection ends after a break in custody and therefore did not carry forward from a meeting months before the later interrogation.
People v. Outlaw · Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District · filed
However, “a suspect’s right to be free from further interrogation under Edwards exists only if there has been no break in custody.” United States v. Drake, 934 F. Supp. 953, 962 (N.D. Ill. 1996). It appears, from what little information is contained in the record, that the meeting a few months earlier was not a custodial interrogation. Moreover, a break clearly occurred between that earlier meeting and the custodial interrogation on December 31, 2006.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Edwards does not require suppression after a break in Miranda custody lasting more than 14 days.
Maryland v. Shatzer · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Because Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his March 2006 statements.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Edwards v. Arizona and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace