The case involved Robert Minnick who escaped from jail in Mississippi, burglarized a mobile home, murdered the occupants, and fled in a stolen truck. Minnick was arrested 4 months later in California on a fugitive warrant. Minnick agreed to answer some questions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and made some incriminating statements before telling FBI agents that he would make a more complete statement when his lawyer was present. Believing that Minnick had invoked his right to counsel, FBI agents terminated the interview. Minnick later agreed to talk with a deputy sheriff from Mississippi, and statements made during this interview led to his prosecution and sentencing to death for murder. Minnick moved to suppress statements made to the sheriff based on his claim that the earlier invocation of his right to counsel during the FBI interview precluded the sheriff from making any subsequent attempts to question him in the absence of counsel. In opposition, the government argued that Minnick's fifth amendment rights had been satisfied when he was given the opportunity to consult with counsel on two or three occasions prior to meeting with the sheriff. The Supreme Court decision involving Minnick severely curtails law enforcement officers' ability to reinitiate custodial interrogation of suspects who previously invoked the right to counsel. The decision means that law enforcement officers will not be able to interrogate suspects in custody once they have invoked the right to counsel unless their attorney is actually present or they change their mind and reinitiate the interrogation. Steps that law enforcement officers can take to limit the adverse effects of the Minnick decision on criminal investigations are discussed. 27 footnotes