Which case requires the defendant to clearly assert the right to remain silent?

• A. Miranda v Arizona
• B. Berghuis v. Thompkins
• C. Caldwell v State
• D. Pennsylvania v Mimms

Answer: (B)

Invoking the right to remain silent must be explicit for it to stop interrogation. Berghuis v. Thompkins establishes the rule that an interrogation continues unless the suspect clearly and unequivocally asserts the desire to remain silent. Simply remaining quiet or giving partial, ambiguous responses does not trigger a valid invocation. The officer may continue questioning until a clear, unambiguous request to remain silent (or to have an attorney) is made.

This emphasis on a clear assertion comes from how the rights are read in the interrogation context. Miranda warnings inform a suspect of the right to remain silent and to consult with counsel, but Berghuis makes it clear that the invocation itself must be explicit; ambiguity allows the questioning to proceed. Other listed cases involve different aspects of interrogation or police stops, not the precise requirement that the right to remain silent be invoked unambiguously.