## Facts

- Richard Bert Mosley was arrested in Detroit in connection with restaurant robberies and was taken to police headquarters.
- Police gave Mosley Miranda warnings, and he signed a rights notification certificate.
- During questioning about the robberies, Mosley stated he did not want to discuss them; the detective immediately stopped the interrogation.
- More than two hours later, while Mosley remained in custody, a different detective gave fresh Miranda warnings and questioned Mosley about an unrelated homicide.
- After initially denying involvement, Mosley made inculpatory statements about the homicide.
- Mosley was charged with first-degree murder; the trial court denied his motion to suppress and admitted the statements, and Mosley was convicted and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, treating any renewed interrogation after invocation of silence as a per se Miranda violation; the Michigan Supreme Court denied review.

## Issues

1. Whether Miranda imposes a per se rule barring any later police interrogation after a suspect invokes the right to remain silent.
2. Whether Mosley’s later statement was admissible because police “scrupulously honored” his initial decision to cut off questioning.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals and upheld admission of Mosley’s statement.
- The Court rejected a categorical ban on re-initiating interrogation after invocation of the right to remain silent.
- The Court held Mosley’s right to cut off questioning was “scrupulously honored” because:
  - questioning about the robberies stopped immediately upon his refusal;
  - a significant interval (over two hours) passed before renewed questioning;
  - fresh Miranda warnings were given and Mosley waived his rights before speaking;
  - the second interview was conducted by a different officer and was limited to a different crime.

## Legal Principles

- Invocation of the right to remain silent requires police to stop interrogation, but it does not automatically bar all later questioning.
- The admissibility of statements obtained after an invocation of silence turns on whether police “scrupulously honored” the suspect’s right to cut off questioning.
- Relevant factors include immediate cessation of the first interrogation, passage of time, renewed Miranda warnings, change in interrogator or location, limiting renewed questioning to a different subject, and absence of pressure to reconsider.
- The right-to-silence framework is distinct from stricter limits that apply when a suspect invokes the right to counsel.

## Conclusion

A suspect’s decision to remain silent must be respected at the time it is invoked, but police may later re-approach and question the suspect if the initial refusal is scrupulously honored through a meaningful break, renewed warnings, and noncoercive, properly limited interrogation.


Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)