People v. Hicks, 69 N.Y.2d 969 (1987)
An individual’s inquiry about whether they should speak to a lawyer is not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, and therefore does not require police to cease questioning.
Summary
Hicks voluntarily went to the police station with his brother. He was gratuitously given Miranda warnings. He then asked police, “Should I speak to a lawyer?” The police asked if he thought he was in trouble; Hicks said no and gave a statement. Hicks was told he wasn’t under arrest and could leave. Hicks moved to suppress the statement, arguing his question invoked his right to counsel. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the inquiry was not an unequivocal request for counsel, and therefore, the police were not required to stop questioning him.
Facts
Defendant Hicks and his brother voluntarily went to the police station.
The police gave Hicks Miranda warnings, even though he was not in custody.
Hicks asked the police, “Should I speak to a lawyer?”
The police responded by asking Hicks if he thought he was in trouble.
Hicks replied, “No,” and then gave a statement to the police.
Hicks was advised that he was not under arrest and was free to leave.
Procedural History
The trial court denied Hicks’s motion to suppress the statement he made to the police.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a suspect’s question to police, “Should I speak to a lawyer?” constitutes an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, thereby requiring the police to cease questioning.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s inquiry did not unequivocally inform the police of his intention to retain counsel.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that a suspect must unequivocally inform the police of their intention to retain counsel to trigger the right to counsel. A simple inquiry, such as asking whether one should speak to a lawyer, does not meet this standard. The court relied on prior case law, including People v. Rowell and People v. Johnson, which established the requirement of an unequivocal request for counsel. The court distinguished the case from People v. Esposito, where the invocation of the right to counsel was deemed unequivocal. The suppression court found that Hicks was not in custody and a reasonable person would not have believed their freedom was impaired. Because the defendant’s inquiry was not an unequivocal request for counsel, his right to counsel did not attach. The court found the remaining arguments to be either unpreserved, unreviewable, or without merit.