## Facts

- Adele Florence Freeman shot and killed her boyfriend, Kevin Gross, on March 30, 2000.
- Immediately after the shooting, Freeman drove to a Maryland State Police barrack and told a sergeant that she had shot someone and that the gun was in her purse.
- Sergeant Albert Paton, aware of a radio report describing a shooting and a female suspect driving a white Oldsmobile toward the area, took control of Freeman’s purse and placed her in a room at the barrack.
- Paton handcuffed Freeman’s shooting hand to a bench to preserve gunshot-residue evidence and read Miranda warnings verbatim; Freeman indicated she understood.
- When Paton asked whether she would knowingly waive her rights, Freeman did not answer.
- Paton retrieved and secured the firearm and asked limited questions, including how many shots were fired and what happened; Freeman replied she did not know and that she did not want to talk about it “right now,” and Paton stopped questioning.
- Corporal David Ruel later read Miranda warnings again; Freeman signed a rights form, appeared calm and coherent, did not request counsel, and gave an oral narrative about events leading to the shooting.
- When asked to provide a written or recorded statement, Freeman declined and requested counsel; Ruel immediately ended the interview.
- Freeman moved to suppress her statements, arguing Miranda violations and unlawful delay in presentment to a commissioner; the trial court denied suppression, and a jury convicted her of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree assault (merged), and use of a firearm in a felony.

## Issues

1. Whether Freeman’s silence in response to the waiver question and her statement that she did not want to talk “right now” constituted a clear invocation of the right to remain silent requiring suppression, and whether police at the pre-waiver stage were limited to clarifying questions.
2. Whether an alleged delay in presentment to a judicial officer required suppression of Freeman’s statements under Maryland law.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the denial of Freeman’s suppression motion and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held Freeman did not clearly invoke her right to remain silent at the pre-waiver stage; her conduct and statements were reasonably treated as ambiguous.
- The court concluded the officers’ limited follow-up and the later interview (after renewed warnings and a signed rights form) did not violate Miranda, and questioning ceased when Freeman requested counsel.
- The court rejected suppression based on delay in presentment, finding no basis under Maryland law to exclude the statements on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A suspect must clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent to bar further questioning; ambiguous or equivocal indications do not automatically trigger a duty to stop all inquiry.
- When a suspect gives an ambiguous response to Miranda warnings at the pre-waiver stage, officers are limited to questions designed to clarify the ambiguity and may not proceed with full interrogation without a valid waiver.
- A Miranda waiver may be established where renewed warnings are given and the suspect knowingly and voluntarily agrees to speak; interrogation must stop once the suspect requests counsel.
- Suppression for delay in presentment depends on state standards and the circumstances; absent a showing that the delay rendered the statement inadmissible under applicable rules, exclusion is not required.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of Freeman’s statements because her pre-waiver conduct did not clearly invoke silence, police actions fit within permissible clarification and waiver procedures, questioning stopped upon her request for counsel, and the asserted presentment delay did not warrant suppression.


Freeman v. State, 857 A.2d 557 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004)