# State v. Collins

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · January 28, 2005 · 937 So. 2d 86

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938296

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Alabama v. Cassandra Marie Collins.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 937 So. 2d 86; 2005 WL 182727
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baschab
- **Judges:** Baschab, Cobb, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938296

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that " 'Davis was limited to a post-waiver ambiguous invocation of rights,' " and that " 'an officer faced with an ambiguous response to an initial advisement of Miranda rights, i.e., at the pre-waiver stage, is limited to posing questions designed to clarify the suspe…
- holding that “[bjeeause [the defendant] did not waive her Miranda rights before she asked the questions about obtaining a lawyer, the ambiguity of her questions re *807 quired the interrogating officer to ask follow-up questions to clarify the ambiguity”
- holding that ‘[bjecause [the defendant] did not waive her Miranda rights before she asked the questions about obtaining a lawyer, the ambiguity *1121 of her questions required the interrogating officer to ask follow-up questions to clarify the ambiguity’
- holding that '[b]ecause [the defendant] did not waive her Miranda rights before she asked the questions about obtaining a lawyer, the ambiguity of her questions required the interrogating officer to ask follow-up questions to clarify the ambiguity'
- holding that Davis did not apply where the defendant’s questions regarding a lawyer were asked “before she signed the waiver-of-rights form”

## Opinion text

My review of the videotape of the appellee's statement indicates that the officer read the appellee her Miranda rights and specifically advised her that she had the right to counsel before she was interrogated; that the appellee indicated her understanding of those rights by her subsequent statements and questions; that the officer responded to the appellee's questions by presenting the waiver-of-rights form to her; and that the appellee read the waiver-of-rights form and signed it. Under these facts, there was not any ambiguity as to whether the appellee wanted to talk to an attorney. Rather, the appellee was fully advised of, unambiguously understood, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted the appellee's motion to suppress, and I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9938296. Public record. Not legal advice.