Code of Criminal Procedure · Davis v. United States

Davis v. United States

Davis v. United States is covered under Davis v. United States and tested on the TCOLE peace officer licensing exam. Cadets typically encounter this topic under "Statements" on practice exams.

To prove this offense, the State must establish each of the following elements: Invocation must be unambiguous (objective standard); Equivocal statements do not require ceasing questioning; Once unambiguously invoked: Edwards rule applies.

Elements you must prove

  • Invocation must be unambiguous (objective standard)
  • Equivocal statements do not require ceasing questioning
  • Once unambiguously invoked: Edwards rule applies

Practice 1 question on 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 — the suspect must invoke unambiguously; under Davis v. United States, an equivocal reference is insufficient and questioning may continue, 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 an invocation must be unambiguous. Equivocal statements ('maybe I should...', 'do I need a lawyer?') do not require officers to stop questioning. Best practices and many policies require officers to seek clarification, but it is not constitutionally required.
Statute: Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)