Also known as: scrupulously honors · scrupulously honored · scrupulously honoring
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard requiring that, after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, officers immediately cease questioning, wait a significant period, administer fresh Miranda warnings, and limit any later questioning to a different crime.
Sofia Stern invoked her right to remain silent during an initial interview about bribery payments. Officers stopped questioning at once and left the room. Two days later a different team gave her fresh Miranda warnings and questioned her only about falsified travel vouchers. Her statements on the vouchers are admissible because the officers followed the required steps before resuming.
Stephen Shaw told detectives he did not want to answer more questions about insider trading. The first team stopped immediately. The next morning different officers provided fresh Miranda warnings and asked only about an unrelated client-statement scheme. Shaw's later confession is admissible.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Spencer Silver stated he was done talking about container smuggling. Officers halted questioning right away. Two hours later a different investigator re-Mirandized Silver and inquired solely about illegal bilge-water dumping. Silver's statements on the dumping are admissible.
Simone Sanders said she would not answer questions after receiving Miranda warnings. Officers ceased all questioning at that moment. Later contact occurred only after a significant interval, fresh warnings, and a shift to an unrelated offense. Statements obtained in the second session are admissible.
Officers must stop questioning immediately upon the invocation. They must then wait a significant period before any reinitiation. Fresh Miranda warnings must be given before the new session begins. The later questioning must be limited to a different crime.
Supporting sources
No. The invocation does not create a permanent bar. Officers may reinitiate if they scrupulously honor the original request by following the required steps of immediate cessation, a significant waiting period, fresh warnings, and a focus on a different crime.
Supporting sources
The scrupulous-honor standard applies only to invocations of the right to silence and permits reinitiation about a different crime after proper safeguards. An invocation of counsel triggers a stricter rule that bars police-initiated questioning about any offense until counsel is provided or the suspect initiates further discussion.
Supporting sources
No. Continuous custody is a relevant circumstance but does not automatically invalidate reinitiation when the other Mosley factors are satisfied. Courts focus on whether officers immediately ceased questioning, waited a significant time, gave fresh warnings, and limited the new session to a different crime.
Supporting sources
…the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his ‘right to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’ ” 423 U. S., at 104.[^maj-4] Thompkins contends that in refusing to respond to questions he effectively invoked his right to remain silent, such that police were required to terminate…