Which statements accurately reflect how a person can be interrogated after invoking their rights?

When a person in custody invokes their right to remain silent or their right to counsel, it fundamentally alters the dynamics of any further interrogation. The correct response indicates that if a suspect initiates contact and requests to talk, this can pave the way for law enforcement to engage with them. This is crucial because once a suspect invokes their rights, law enforcement is prohibited from further questioning unless the suspect chooses to reinitiate contact.

In scenarios where a suspect does decide to reach out and express a willingness to discuss the matter, it is important for law enforcement to ensure that the suspect is proceeding voluntarily and that they are aware of their rights. This means that a suspect can voluntarily choose to engage in conversation after having initially invoked their rights, thus making it possible for law enforcement to conduct an interrogation under those specific circumstances.

As for the other answer choices: the stipulation that nobody can question an individual unless a doctor is present is not a standard or recognized procedure in interrogative practices pertaining to invoked rights. Similarly, while an attorney’s involvement is essential when a suspect has invoked their right to counsel, it’s not accurate to say that only an attorney can question them after invoking their rights. Interrogation can resume if the suspect themselves initiates the conversation