Code of Criminal Procedure · U.S. Supreme Court, 1994

Davis v. United States

Davis v. United States is a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision. This page summarizes key points and works through practice questions for Texas peace officer exam preparation.

Key points

  • Applies after a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver
  • Invocation of counsel must be unambiguous (objective standard)
  • Equivocal statements do not require officers to stop questioning
  • Once unambiguously invoked: Edwards rule applies

Learn more about this topic

Time yourself, score your run, review missed questions with statute references — Free Practice Pass cadets get limited access.

Start Free Practice

Worked examples

Worked example 1

SCENARIO. A suspect in custody says: 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' The officer continues to question. Was this a valid invocation of counsel?

  1. Yes — any reference to counsel terminates questioning
  2. No, if the suspect has already validly waived Miranda — under Davis v. United States, after a knowing and voluntary waiver an equivocal reference to counsel does not require questioning to stop, though best practices favor clarification Correct
  3. Only if the lawyer's name is given
  4. Only after Miranda is repeated
Why: Davis held that after a knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights, officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney. Equivocal statements ('maybe I should...', 'do I need a lawyer?') do not require officers to stop. Many policies require officers to seek clarification, but it is not constitutionally required.
Statute: Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)