This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Roberson (D) was arrested at the scene of a burglary. D stated that he wanted an attorney before answering any questions. Interrogation ceased. A different officer who was unaware of the request for an attorney interrogated D about a different offense. D made an incriminating statement after being advised of his rights about that different offense. These statements were excluded at trial. Arizona (P) sought a review of the suppression order. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court accepted review.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.