Panel debates whether request for a 'minute to think' is an invocation of the right to remain silent

A central point of argument before the panel was whether Dillard's statement asking for time to think amounted to an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent. Defense counsel Jared Steed urged the court that when Dillard asked for a minute to think, that should have ended the interview. "When he asked for time to think by himself, that is a unequivocal invocation," Steed argued.

The bench questioned whether the formulation was unequivocal or equivocal and whether officers were legally obligated to ask follow-up clarifying questions. At one point a justice asked defense counsel to cite a case requiring officers to ask follow-up questions; Steed pointed to State v. Luna as instructive on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis but acknowledged that Luna does not constitutionally require follow-ups. The State argued equivocal formulations do not trigger an obligation to pause or clarify and that the record shows officers took steps such as providing blankets, water and a written form and that Dillard nonetheless continued to answer some questions. The justices probed whether the legal standard should depend on an objective view of how a reasonable officer would interpret the request.