In the 1990 case of Robert S. Minnick v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect has requested legal counsel during an interrogation, law enforcement officials cannot initiate further questioning without the presence of an attorney, even if the suspect had previously consulted with his lawyer. The decision expanded on Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which held that police must cease interrogating a suspect who requests legal representation until an attorney is present to avoid violating Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel protections under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In this case, Robert S Minnick was arrested for burglary and murder after escaping from jail; he spoke with his lawyer twice before being questioned by police again where he made incriminating statements used in trial leading to conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Robert S. Minnick v. Mississippi, 1990, Justice Kennedy argued that the majority's ruling was inconsistent with previous decisions and unnecessarily complicated law enforcement procedures. He contended that once a suspect has been informed of their rights and had an opportunity to consult with counsel, any subsequent waiver should be considered valid unless there is evidence of coercion or other improper tactics by police officers. The requirement imposed by the majority - that suspects must have access to legal advice at every stage before they can waive their right to counsel - would place an undue burden on law enforcement without significantly enhancing protections for defendants' constitutional rights. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on public safety due to delays in obtaining critical information from suspects who are willing but not legally permitted to speak without a lawyer present.