## Facts

- James Edward Bradshaw was investigated in connection with a fatal pickup-truck crash and was questioned at a police station after being advised of his *Miranda* rights.
- After arrest, Bradshaw was again advised of his rights, denied involvement, and requested an attorney before continuing.
- Police ceased questioning.
- While being transported from the station to jail, Bradshaw asked an officer, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?”
- The officer replied that Bradshaw did not have to talk and reminded him that, because he had requested counsel, any discussion had to be voluntary.
- A conversation followed about what would happen next, including discussion of a polygraph test; Bradshaw agreed to take it.
- Before the polygraph, Bradshaw again received *Miranda* warnings and later made inculpatory statements admitting he had been driving, had been drinking heavily, and had passed out at the wheel.
- The trial court denied suppression and Bradshaw was convicted in a bench trial; the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Bradshaw had not “initiated” further communication under *Edwards v. Arizona*.

## Issues

1. After a suspect in custody requests counsel, does the suspect’s question, “Well, what is going to happen to me now?”, constitute “initiat[ion]” of further communication under *Edwards v. Arizona*?
2. If the suspect initiates further communication, what showing is required to establish a valid waiver of the previously invoked right to counsel?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals and remanded.
- A plurality held Bradshaw’s question constituted initiation of further communication under *Edwards* because it reflected willingness to discuss the investigation rather than a purely routine custodial inquiry.
- The plurality further held that, under the totality of the circumstances, Bradshaw knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel after receiving renewed *Miranda* warnings.
- Justice Powell concurred in the judgment, agreeing that a valid waiver occurred while emphasizing that *Edwards* operates as a protective, non-coercion-focused rule.
- Four Justices dissented, concluding Bradshaw neither initiated a discussion about the investigation nor validly waived counsel after invoking the right.

## Legal Principles

- After a custodial suspect invokes the right to counsel, police may not resume interrogation unless the suspect initiates further communication with law enforcement.
- “Initiation” requires more than routine questions incident to custody; it includes statements reasonably indicating willingness to engage in a generalized discussion about the investigation.
- Initiation does not itself establish waiver; the prosecution must also show, under traditional *Miranda* standards and the totality of the circumstances, a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver after the request for counsel.
- Re-administering *Miranda* warnings and the absence of coercion are significant factors supporting a valid waiver.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a suspect’s post-invocation inquiry can amount to initiation under *Edwards*, and that subsequent statements are admissible when the suspect, after renewed *Miranda* warnings, knowingly and intelligently waives the previously invoked right to counsel under the totality of the circumstances.


Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983)