Commonwealth v. Fayne

Holding

In an appeal involving statements that a defendant made while he was in police custody, the Court of Appeals concluded that the police had impermissibly obtained the statements at issue after the defendant requested counsel. When an impermissible post-invocation interrogation ends and the suspect thereafter initiates a further exchange that produces statements like the ones at issue here, those statements may be admissible if accompanied by a valid waiver, notwithstanding the initial Edwards violation. A waiver need not be express; it may be inferred from the suspect’s words and conduct, and the relevant inquiry is whether the suspect understood his right to counsel and chose to relinquish it. Because the interrogation in this case initially ceased, defendant reinitiated communication, and he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the circuit court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the resulting confession. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.