Also known as: ambiguous reference · equivocal reference · latent ambiguity · patent ambiguity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statement or description whose meaning is unclear because it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. The lack of clarity prevents the statement from triggering automatic legal consequences such as halting questioning or causing a gift to fail without further inquiry.
Arthur Abrams's will devised a parcel described as the lot on Maple Street that he had purchased in 2015. He actually owned the lot on Oak Street that he had bought the same year. His executor offers testimony from the drafting attorney and family members showing that Arthur always referred to the Oak Street property by the Maple Street address in conversation. The court admits the evidence to identify the intended property and upholds the devise.
After receiving Miranda warnings and signing a waiver, Anita Ali grows anxious during questioning about workplace safety violations. She asks the detective, "Do I need a lawyer for this kind of thing, or is that just on TV?" The detective continues without pausing or clarifying. Anita later seeks to suppress her statements, but the court denies the motion because her remark did not clearly request counsel.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
An ambiguous or equivocal reference does not require officers to stop. A suspect must articulate a desire for counsel clearly enough that a reasonable officer would understand it as a present request. Conditional or hesitant statements such as "Maybe I should have a lawyer" or questions about whether a lawyer is needed leave officers free to continue.
No. When extrinsic evidence shows that the description closely matches property the testator actually owned and reveals the intended devise, the court may construe the language to pass that property rather than let the gift fail.
No. Officers are permitted but not required to ask clarifying questions. They may simply continue the interrogation when the suspect's words are reasonably capable of more than one meaning.
…concern about “ ‘wholly irrational obstacles’ ” to police investigation applies with less force. In addition, the suspect’s equivocal reference to a lawyer in Davis occurred only after he had given express oral and written waivers of his rights. Davis ’ holding is explicitly predicated on that fact. See 512 U. S., at 461 (“We…