Which case allows re-approach after a break in custody when rights have been invoked?

Which case allows re-approach after a break in custody when rights have been invoked?

• A. Berghuis v. Thompkins
• B. North Carolina v Butler
• C. Missouri v Seibert
• D. Maryland v Shatzer

Answer: (D)

The issue tested is when authorities may re-initiate questioning after a suspect has invoked Miranda rights, specifically when a break in custody occurs. Maryland v. Shatzer holds that once a suspect in custody invokes their rights, interrogation must stop. But there is a practical exception: if the suspect is released from custody and there is a break in custody lasting 14 days or more, police may re-approach and reinitiate interrogation, provided the suspect is no longer in custody and a fresh Miranda warning is given. This creates a safe harbor to re-interrogate after a genuine separation, so long as the break is long enough and the suspect is not in custody at the time of re-interrogation. The other cases don’t establish this specific break-in-custody rule. Berghuis focuses on how a defendant waives or invokes rights through their conduct and what constitutes a valid invocation; North Carolina v Butler addresses how a waiver can be inferred from actions; Missouri v Seibert concerns evading Miranda by a two-step interrogation.

The issue tested is when authorities may re-initiate questioning after a suspect has invoked Miranda rights, specifically when a break in custody occurs.

Maryland v. Shatzer holds that once a suspect in custody invokes their rights, interrogation must stop. But there is a practical exception: if the suspect is released from custody and there is a break in custody lasting 14 days or more, police may re-approach and reinitiate interrogation, provided the suspect is no longer in custody and a fresh Miranda warning is given. This creates a safe harbor to re-interrogate after a genuine separation, so long as the break is long enough and the suspect is not in custody at the time of re-interrogation.

The other cases don’t establish this specific break-in-custody rule. Berghuis focuses on how a defendant waives or invokes rights through their conduct and what constitutes a valid invocation; North Carolina v Butler addresses how a waiver can be inferred from actions; Missouri v Seibert concerns evading Miranda by a two-step interrogation.