September 17, 2025
When you tell officers you’re done talking, they must stop. In The State of Texas v. Kevin Robles (Tex. App.—El Paso, July 31, 2025), the Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed suppression of a custodial statement because detectives kept questioning after the suspect clearly said he was “done with this interview.” For people facing charges in Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties, this decision is a powerful reminder that violations of your right to remain silent can get statements thrown out. (CaseLaw)
Quick Case Snapshot
- Court: Eighth Court of Appeals (El Paso)
- Date: July 31, 2025
- Issue: Whether officers “scrupulously honored” the suspect’s invocation of his right to remain silent
- Outcome: Suppression affirmed—continuing the interrogation after the suspect said he was done violated Miranda/Art. 38.22. (CaseLaw)
What Happened in Robles?
After receiving warnings, Robles told detectives “I think I’m done with this interview.” When asked a clarifying question, he confirmed he was done. Instead of stopping, the detectives kept engaging until he made inculpatory statements. The trial court suppressed the statement, and the court of appeals affirmed: once a person in custody unambiguously invokes the right to remain silent, questioning must cease. (CaseLaw)
The Law: Miranda + Texas’s Extra Protection
- Miranda v. Arizona requires police to give warnings before custodial interrogation and to stop questioning if a suspect invokes the right to remain silent or asks for a lawyer. (Justia Law)
- Michigan v. Mosley adds that the invocation must be “scrupulously honored.” (Justia Law)
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 38.22 mirrors Miranda and explicitly adds the right to terminate the interview at any time. (Texas Statutes)
- Key Texas cases defense lawyers cite:
- Ramos v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2008): officers had to stop once the suspect said he didn’t want to talk. (CaseMine)
- Dowthitt v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1996): officers may not continue until they “persuade” a suspect to change their mind. (Justia)
- Ramos v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 2008): officers had to stop once the suspect said he didn’t want to talk. (CaseMine)
Texas also has a statutory exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) that can suppress evidence obtained in violation of the law. (FindLaw Codes)
Why Robles Matters in Houston, The Woodlands, Sugar Land, and Galveston
For many cases—DWI, assault family violence, drug possession, theft, weapons charges—the strongest evidence is often your own words. Robles shows that when officers ignore a clear invocation like “I’m done” or “I want a lawyer,” those words can be kept out of court.
How this plays out locally:
- Traffic-stop escalations (DWI): If you invoked your rights but questioning continued in the Intox room, suppression may apply.
- Domestic-violence interviews: If you said “I don’t want to talk” at the station and questioning continued, Ramos and Robles provide a roadmap. (CaseMine, CaseLaw)
- Drug cases: Post-arrest chats in a substation or detective bureau after an invocation are prime for suppression. (Justia)
“Scrupulously Honored” in Plain English
If you’re in custody and you say, clearly, that you’re done talking or you want a lawyer:
- Questioning must stop.
- Officers cannot keep nudging you to chat “just a little more.”
- If they do—and you talk—the defense can move to suppress those statements. (Justia Law, Justia)
Texas’s Article 38.22 makes this even clearer by spelling out your right to terminate the interview at any time. (Texas Statutes)
What To Do If Police Want to “Just Ask a Few Questions”
You can be polite and firm. Two sentences protect you:
- “I am invoking my right to remain silent.”
- “I want a lawyer.”
Then stop talking. Do not explain, apologize, or keep answering “small” questions. Call The Napier Law Firm—we defend clients across Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties.
How The Napier Law Firm Attacks Bad Interrogations
Our team digs into:
- Interview video/audio to pinpoint the exact moment you invoked your rights
- Whether you received proper 38.22 warnings and whether officers kept pushing after an invocation
- Mental-health and capacity issues that affect whether any waiver was voluntary and knowing (a factor in Robles) (CaseLaw)
- Companion arguments under Texas’s exclusionary rule (Art. 38.23) and relevant case law (e.g., Ramos, Dowthitt, Mosley) (FindLaw Codes, CaseMine, Justia, Justia Law)
If officers crossed the line, we file tailored motions to suppress and fight to keep unlawfully obtained statements out of your case.
FAQs
Does saying “I think I’m done” really count?
Yes—Texas courts look at the totality of circumstances. In Robles, the court treated the suspect’s statement that he was “done with this interview,” followed by a confirming answer, as an invocation that had to be honored; continued questioning led to suppression. (CaseLaw)
Do police have to stop immediately?
Yes. Under Miranda and Art. 38.22, interrogation must cease when you invoke your right to remain silent. Texas decisions like Ramos and Dowthitt reinforce that the invocation must be scrupulously honored. (Justia Law, Texas Statutes, CaseMine, Justia)
What if I kept talking after I invoked?
The State often argues you “re-initiated” conversation. Courts examine who restarted the interview and how. If officers prompted or pressured after your invocation, the defense can still win suppression. (Justia Law, Justia)
If you or a loved one is under investigation or already charged in Houston, The Woodlands, Conroe, Sugar Land, or Galveston, do not try to talk your way out of it. Invoke your rights and then call The Napier Law Firm, PLLC.
- Start your defense: Request a free consultation
- Learn more about our Houston DWI defense and criminal defense services: The Napier Law Firm
Citations & Further Reading
- The State of Texas v. Kevin Robles (Tex. App.—El Paso, July 31, 2025). (CaseLaw)
- Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 (warnings; right to terminate interview). (Texas Statutes)
- Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23 (Texas statutory exclusionary rule). (FindLaw Codes)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (Justia Law)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975). (Justia Law)
- Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). (CaseMine)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). (Justia)