Law360 (July 15, 2026, 6:09 PM EDT) -- A murder suspect's statements to Detroit police can't be used at his upcoming trial because officers continued engaging with him after he requested a court-appointed attorney, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, holding that police violated his constitutional right to counsel. 

In a 6-1 decision, the court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals and reinstated a Wayne County trial judge's order suppressing Daren Fenderson's post-invocation statements, concluding Detroit police undermined the Miranda warnings by telling him he did not have a lawyer, that no attorney was available and that he did not have money to hire one before questioning resumed. 

"In this case, after defendant invoked his right to counsel, police tried to obtain an attorney for him. They returned empty-handed, over two and a half hours later, telling defendant that he did not have an attorney and could not use the money taken from him during arrest to obtain one," Justice Kimberly A. Thomas wrote for the majority. "Thereafter, in response to defendant's questions about what was going on, police resumed the interrogation. We agree with the trial court that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda were violated."

Fenderson is awaiting trial on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, felony-firearm and escape from lawful custody in connection with a fatal shooting in Detroit.

According to the opinion, police arrested Fenderson after the victim was found pinned between a crashed vehicle and the front porch of a house.

The day after his arrest, Detroit police Sgt. Reginald Beasley and Detective Douglas Williams advised Fenderson of his Miranda rights. Initially, Fenderson agreed to speak without a lawyer, saying he did not want to wait for one. 

During roughly 90 minutes of questioning, however, officers repeatedly challenged his account, telling him they had surveillance video and other evidence contradicting his story, the opinion said. Beasley also suggested the evidence made Fenderson appear to be "a callous killer." 

Eventually, Fenderson asked to have an attorney, the opinion said. Beasley told him he would try to find one. 

After waiting alone for more than 2½ hours, Fenderson asked where his attorney was, the opinion said. Police told him they could not find one, that he did not have money to hire one and that they couldn't use the money taken from him when he was arrested. 

Justice Thomas said those statements were inconsistent with Miranda's guarantee that an attorney will be appointed if a suspect cannot afford one. 

The prosecution argued that Fenderson restarted the conversation himself when he asked, "So what's going on?" after police returned to the interrogation room. 

The Supreme Court rejected that argument. 

"In the context of a discussion about whether, having invoked his right to counsel, he had an attorney … the question 'So what's going on?' cannot reasonably be considered an affirmative request to reinitiate the interrogation without an attorney," Justice Thomas wrote. 

Instead, the majority concluded police restarted the interrogation. 

After Fenderson said he was confused, an officer told him questioning could continue only if he agreed to speak without an attorney, the opinion said. Fenderson said he wanted to "get this over with," waiving his Miranda rights, and later made incriminating statements. 

The court emphasized that reading Miranda rights a second time did not fix the constitutional violation. 

The majority said Fenderson repeatedly told officers he was confused after hearing there was no lawyer available and that he lacked money to obtain one. 

Police should have either provided counsel or ended the interrogation altogether, the court said. 

The court held that suppression was required under both the Fifth Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution. 

Justice Brian K. Zahra filed the lone dissent, arguing the officers complied with every constitutional requirement. 

According to the dissent, officers immediately stopped questioning after Fenderson requested an attorney, spent time trying to locate one and truthfully informed him they had been unable to find counsel. 

Justice Zahra said officers repeatedly emphasized they could not continue questioning unless Fenderson voluntarily chose to speak without an attorney and repeatedly assured him he should not feel forced to do so. 

"The police did everything they were constitutionally required to do in this case," Justice Zahra wrote in his dissent. 

Justice Zahra rejected the majority's conclusion that officers misled Fenderson about his right to appointed counsel, arguing Beasley said only that Fenderson did not currently have an attorney, not that he would never receive one. 

The dissent also concluded Fenderson, not police, restarted the conversation by asking what would happen next and repeatedly stating he wanted to continue talking without counsel. 

"Currently we are determining what next steps we want to take in light of the decision," said Maria Miller, spokesperson for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office in a written statement to Law360 on Wednesday. 

Counsel for Fenderson did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. 

The state is represented by Lori Baughman Palmer and Anna Bickerstaff of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.

Fenderson is represented by Coral M. Watt.

The case is People of Michigan v. Daren Donell Fenderson, case number 167391, in the Michigan Supreme Court. 

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.