The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed, holding that the mere passage of time does not end the Edwards protections, and that, assuming, arguendo , a break-in-custody exception to Edwards existed, Shatzer’s release back into the general prison population did not constitute such a break. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during interrogation, so the detective terminated the interview. In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Supreme Court will decide if a break in custody or a significant lapse of time terminates Edwards v. Arizona’s irrebuttable presumption that any statements made by a criminal defendant after invoking his or her Fifth Amendment right to counsel are the product of a coercive interrogation environment. The 2003 allegation was assigned to Detective Shane Blankenship, who went to interview Shatzer in prison. Shatzer helps us distinguish and interpret two prior cases: Miranda and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477. In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Justice Antonin G. Scalia writing for the majority reasoned that when a suspect has been released from … At the time of this allegation, Shatzer was imprisoned for a different child-sexual-abuse conviction. Today in the world of case review we will look at Maryland v. Shatzer. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals of Maryland, holding that because Mr. Shatzer experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards does not mandate suppression of his 2006 statements. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during … The investigation was closed shortly afterwards. In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. The Court's decision in this case will balance suspects’ right to be free of … The ruling distinguished Edwards, which had not specified a limit. In 2003 a police detective went to the Maryland prison where respondent Michael Shatzer was incarcerated for a prior offense and attempted to question him about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under Edwards v. Arizona ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody. So the detective promptly terminated the interview. Shatzer initially waived his Miranda rights but afterwards demanded an attorney, at which point Blankenship ended the interview.