If a suspect changes their mind from wanting to talk to invoking their rights, what must be clear?

When a suspect initially agrees to speak with law enforcement but later decides to invoke their rights, it is crucial that their intention to do so is unequivocally clear. This clarity is essential to ensure that law enforcement respects the suspect's rights and does not continue questioning without consent.

The law mandates that if a suspect wishes to exercise their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney, this decision must be communicated clearly to the officers. This helps prevent any ambiguity about whether the suspect still wishes to engage in conversation or if they intend to cease communication. The clear expression of intent protects the suspect’s rights and ensures law enforcement adheres to constitutional guidelines established by cases such as Miranda v. Arizona.

While understanding the consequences of invoking rights is important, it is the clarity of their intention that primarily governs the officers' response. Additionally, the reason for the change and the obligations of the officer, though relevant in their own contexts, do not supersede the immediate need for a clear expression of the suspect’s decision to invoke their rights.