05/15/2026
Miranda Rights in Illinois: What Happens If Police Keep Questioning After You Ask for a Lawyer? Lessons from People v. Erdene for Springfield & Sangamon County Drivers
By W. Scott Hanken, Springfield Criminal & DUI Defense Attorney
Posted: May 15, 2026 | Updated for Google’s 2026 Helpful Content Guidelines
🚨 Stopped in Springfield? Arrested in Sangamon County?
If you say “I want a lawyer” or “I have an attorney,” the police must stop asking questions — immediately. A recent Illinois Appellate Court ruling proves it.
Call (217) 544-4057 now for your free, confidential consultation with a 37-year local criminal and DUI defense lawyer who was a former DUI prosecutor.
Why This Matters Right Now in Springfield, IL
You’re driving on I-55, Veterans Parkway, or through downtown Springfield. A Sangamon County Sheriff’s deputy or Springfield Police officer pulls you over for suspected DUI, drugs, or another offense. Handcuffs go on. You’re at the station. An officer reads your Miranda rights.
You clearly say you want a lawyer.
What happens next can make or break your case.
In People v. Erdene (2025 IL App (1st) 231789-U), the First District Appellate Court drew a bright red line: once you unambiguously invoke your right to counsel, interrogation must stop. Police cannot “nudge” you to keep talking. Statements obtained after that violation are inadmissible at trial.
This is exactly the kind of real-world problem-solving Google’s 2026 Helpful Content updates reward — practical answers that protect your rights in Sangamon County courtrooms.
The Facts of People v. Erdene – A Cautionary Tale for Local Drivers
In 2019, Munkhbat Munkh Erdene was involved in a fatal accident in Mount Prospect. He spoke very little English. At the station, officers used an interpreter:
1. Police read Miranda warnings.
2. Erdene explicitly said he did not wish to speak and that he had an attorney.
3. Officers continued questioning anyway.
4. Under pressure, he eventually made incriminating statements about drinking.
The trial court allowed those statements. The Appellate Court did not.
Key Holding (direct quote from the opinion):
“Statements taken in violation of Miranda may not be used as substantive evidence against the accused at trial.”
The conviction was reversed and the case sent back for a new trial.
The Bright-Line Rule: Edwards v. Arizona & Illinois Law
This isn’t new law — it’s the Edwards v. Arizona (1981) bright-line rule, strictly enforced in Illinois:
• Once you invoke your right to counsel (5th and 6th Amendments), police cannot re-initiate interrogation.
• The only exceptions: (1) your lawyer is present, or (2) you clearly start the conversation again after a significant break.
• Illinois courts apply this through 725 ILCS 5/103-4 (right to counsel in criminal cases) and the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure.
In DUI cases, this often means statements about “how many drinks” or “where you were coming from” get thrown out — which can collapse the entire prosecution’s case under 625 ILCS 5/11-501.
Real-world Springfield impact: Whether it’s a breathalyzer refusal on Route 66 or a drug possession stop near the State Capitol, your words after invoking counsel cannot be used against you.
Long-Tail Questions Springfield Residents Ask Every Week
Q: What exactly counts as “asking for a lawyer” in Illinois?
Any clear statement — “I want a lawyer,” “I have an attorney,” or “I’m not talking without my lawyer.” Ambiguity can be argued, but the court in Erdene said a direct request is unambiguous.
Q: Can police keep talking to me after I say I want a lawyer?
No. Continuing interrogation after a clear invocation violates the Constitution. Any “waiver” obtained right after your request is presumed coerced.
Q: Does this only apply to DUI cases in Sangamon County?
No — it applies to every custodial interrogation: DUI, drug charges, violent crimes, weapons cases, and more.
Q: What if I already gave a statement — can a good lawyer still help?
Yes. An experienced Springfield criminal defense attorney files a motion to suppress. In Erdene, even when trial counsel missed it initially, the Appellate Court stepped in.
How My Former Prosecutor Experience Gives You the Edge
With 37 years as a Springfield criminal and DUI defense lawyer — and years spent as a former Sangamon County prosecutor and Assistant State’s Attorney — I know exactly how officers are trained to push past your rights. I use that insider knowledge to:
• File aggressive suppression motions
• Challenge every procedural step
• Negotiate from strength or take the fight to trial
Awards & Recognition:
• Voted “Best Attorney” by readers of the Illinois Times Best of Springfield and State Journal-Register Reader’s Choice
• Avvo 10.0 “Superb” rating
• 99% 5-star client reviews on Avvo, Google, and FindLaw
Clients say: “Scott gave me back my reputation… not guilty verdict.”
Topic Cluster: Your Rights During Illinois Arrests
This post is part of my strategy on Springfield & Sangamon County Criminal Defense Rights. Read the connected cluster content:
• 3 Proven Ways to Beat a DUI in Springfield, IL: Bad Stop, Faulty Breathalyzer & Rising BAC Defense
• The Skoal, Zyn, or Breath Mint Defense: How Smokeless To***co Can Invalidate an Illinois DUI Breath Test
• 2026 Guide to Sangamon County DUI & Traffic Court: Remote Justice Updates
• Illinois Law of Accountability 720 ILCS 5/5-2 – Springfield Defense Guide
• Cannabis DUI & Implied Consent in Springfield – 625 ILCS 5/11-501.9
Internal high-intent links → Free Consultation – Contact W. Scott Hanken | About My 37-Year Record
What You Should Do Right Now
1. Invoke your rights clearly — “I want a lawyer” and then stop talking.
2. Call an experienced local attorney immediately — before you speak to anyone else.
3. Let me review your case for free — I’ll tell you exactly how the Erdene ruling and Edwards rule apply to your facts.
📍 Serving Springfield, Sangamon County, and all of Central Illinois
W. Scott Hanken, Attorney at Law
1100 S. 5th Street, Springfield, IL 62703
Phone: (217) 544-4057
__________
⚖️ Does "Keep Talking" After Asking for a Lawyer Violate the Constitution?
A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision (People v. Erdene) serves as a powerful reminder that once a suspect asks for an attorney, the interrogation must stop. Period.
🚗 The Incident
In 2019, Munkhbat Munkh Erdene was involved in a tragic accident in Mount Prospect, IL, fatally striking an IDOT contractor. Mr. Erdene, who speaks very little English, was arrested and taken to the station for questioning using a language interpreter service.
🛑 The "Miranda" Breakdown
During the early morning interview, things took a critical legal turn:
1. Police read Mr. Erdene his Miranda rights via an interpreter.
2. Mr. Erdene explicitly stated he did not wish to speak and that he had an attorney.
3. The Error: Instead of stopping, the officer continued asking questions.
4. Under pressure, Mr. Erdene eventually agreed to talk and admitted to drinking earlier that day.
🔍 The Major Issue: Ambiguous vs. Unambiguous Invocation
The core of this appeal was whether Mr. Erdene properly "invoked" his right to counsel.
• The Problem: The prosecution argued the waiver was valid because he eventually agreed to talk.
• The Reality: The Court found that Mr. Erdene’s request for a lawyer was clear. Because there was no break in questioning between him asking for a lawyer and the police asking him to waive his rights, the subsequent "waiver" wasn't voluntary—it was coerced.
🏛️ The Court’s Ruling
The First District Appellate Court didn't mince words:
"Statements taken in violation of Miranda may not be used as substantive evidence against the accused at trial."
Because his constitutional rights were violated, the court reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial.
💡 The Takeaway
This case highlights a vital legal shield: Once a suspect requests an attorney, police cannot re-initiate questioning until counsel is present, unless the suspect starts the conversation themselves.
Even if a defense attorney misses this in pretrial motions (as happened here), the violation is so fundamental to our justice system that the Appellate Court stepped in to correct it.
Justice depends on the process being followed correctly—for everyone.
🚩 Key Legal Issue: The "Bright-Line" Rule
The major issue in this case was the violation of the "Bright-Line" Rule regarding the right to counsel.
• The Conflict: When a suspect says "I have an attorney," the law creates a "protective wall." 🧱
• The Breach: In this case, the police "nudged" the suspect to keep talking immediately after he invoked his rights.
• The Impact: The court ruled that because the suspect didn't "initiate" the further conversation, any statement made afterward was legally poisoned and inadmissible.
To learn more about how an aggressive and experienced Criminal, DUI and Traffic Defense Attorney can help you defend yourself against whatever allegations you may be facing, call 217 544-4057 or visit hankenlaw.com
