In the case of Oregon v. Bradshaw, 1982, the US Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant's right to counsel had been violated during police questioning after he had initially waived his Miranda rights but later requested an attorney. The defendant, Larry Bradshaw, was involved in a fatal car accident and charged with manslaughter. After being read his Miranda rights and waiving them voluntarily, he made incriminating statements to police officers at the scene of the accident. Later at the station house though, when asked if he would submit to a breath test for alcohol content in blood or urine sample tests for drugs presence in body fluids by another officer who didn't know about previous waiver of rights; Bradshaw requested an attorney before answering any more questions. The court ruled that although defendants have a right to request legal representation during custodial interrogation once they've invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (Miranda Rights), this does not necessarily mean all subsequent communication between law enforcement officials and suspects is prohibited unless initiated by defense counsel or suspect himself/herself under certain circumstances where it can be reasonably inferred that suspect wants further discussions without lawyer present.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon v. Bradshaw, Justice William Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a confession obtained after an accused person had requested counsel. He argued that this violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, which requires law enforcement officials to cease questioning once a suspect has asked for an attorney. In his view, any waiver of these rights must be made knowingly and voluntarily by the individual involved; it cannot simply be inferred from their subsequent behavior or statements as was done in this case where Bradshaw initiated conversation about routine booking procedures but not interrogation on his alleged crime. Brennan believed that allowing such waivers would undermine Miranda protections and potentially lead to coerced confessions.