Criminal – Statements made after right to counsel is invoked are nevertheless admissible

Although officers continued interrogating the defendant after he invoked his right to counsel, because that interrogation then ended, and the defendant then knowingly and voluntarily initiated a further exchange with law enforcement, those statements are admissible.

 Background

Brian Fayne moved to suppress the statements that he made during the an interview with law enforcement, arguing that the officers continued to question him after he invoked his right to counsel in violation Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). The circuit court denied Fayne’s motion to suppress, finding that while Fayne had invoked his right to counsel, he later reinitiated contact by opening the door and requesting Detective Smith. The circuit court further found that Fayne knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before making additional statements.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the police impermissibly obtained the statements at issue after Fayne requested counsel. It held that Fayne did not reinitiate contact because the interrogation did not cease in a manner sufficient to permit reinitiation. It further held that even if Fayne had reinitiated the discussion, he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.

Edwards

This case turns on sequence. Fayne invoked his right to counsel. The police continued questioning in violation of Edwards. The interrogation then ended. Fayne—not the police—resumed communication. The question is whether, under those circumstances, his statements subsequent to resuming communications were admissible under Edwards.

The Court of Appeals treated the earlier Edwards violation as dispositive. That interpretation, however, extends the rule beyond its proper scope. Edwards requires that interrogation cease; it does not impose a permanent bar on further communication between a suspect and law enforcement. If questioning ends and the suspect later chooses to speak, the admissibility of any subsequent statements turns on reinitiation and waiver.

The record supports the circuit court’s finding that the interrogation ended. Detective Carpenter stated that there was nothing further he could do, exited the room, and closed the door. Fayne was left alone. No officer remained and no questioning continued. This was not a brief pause in an ongoing exchange; it marked the end of the interview.

That officers earlier failed to honor Fayne’s invocation of his right to counsel does not change this analysis. The rule requires that questioning cease. It does not resolve the admissibility of statements made after questioning in fact ends. Once questioning stops, the focus shifts to what follows under Edwards.

Within seconds of being left alone, Fayne reopened communication. He opened the door and asked for Detective Smith, explaining that Carpenter had been “too aggressive” and that he was more comfortable speaking with Smith. When told that Smith might not be available, Fayne repeated that he wanted to speak with him. This request was not prompted by further police conduct. It was Fayne’s decision to resume the conversation. That sequence—cessation of the interrogation followed by suspect-initiated communication—is what was contemplated in Edwards. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.

Knowing/intelligent waiver

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. The relevant inquiry is whether the suspect understood his right to counsel and chose to relinquish it.

In this case, the record supports the circuit court’s finding that Fayne waived his right to counsel. Fayne was advised of his Miranda rights and stated that he understood them. He demonstrated awareness of his right to counsel by invoking that right. After the interview ended, Fayne chose to reopen communication, requested a different detective and stated that he was ready to talk.

He then provided a detailed account of the offense. The record does not reflect confusion or continued coercion after the interrogation ended. Fayne’s reinitiation of the conversation was a deliberate choice. The Court of Appeals effectively treated the earlier Edwards violation as permanently tainting everything that followed and blurred the distinction between Miranda waiver and general voluntariness. That is not the governing framework.

Reversed and final judgment.

Fayne v. Commonwealth, Record No. 250359, April 23, 2026 (Chafin). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 026-6-024. 9 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-6-024
Virginia Lawyers Weekly