specifically the right to remain silent which he repeatedly invoked and which is indications were continuously frustrated by the detectives of the name of police department in this case the state has argued that the indication exhibit five feet in the defendant says i don't talk no more and the officer say don't listen can i be done and the officers go on i already told you i ain't got nothing else to say and it goes on and on a short time after that i ain't got nothing else to say and interrogation continues and then finally can i'm done talking in the phone you know you can sit there and not say a word you know listen guys they keep continuing on the state hasn't really explained to me how the defendant or to this court how they define it could have been more clear in those indications i don't want to talk no more even if he had said nothing else after that that would have been a clear indication of his right to remain silent but he did say more and he continued to attempt to invoke that right and those it comes from continually frustrated by the officers up in the place from when you're talking about the second interview now in the first interview he said the same thing in those  conceding on this record that if those indications were clear and unequivocal there was not a listing on or by the detectives involved in this case from there then what's the remedy for the remedy is  your mama respect you if you stand up and take responsibility he keeps asking to talk to her at one point he's told no you know we'll call or we can either tell you being a c n n guy and leave him he told us you know taking responsibility or call and we'll show are all these pictures of the crime scene will tell or you were involved in this terrible bands but they won't let him call he asks again later to call and they say no you can't call you haven't given us and things so throughout this i they're using the defendant's mouth to draw out a statement in their phone call that he's allowed to then place and make they actually offer after he's confessed i want to play him out now you want us the car you want they dial the number respect you they've set this up throughout so just set it apart as separate when it's really it really is just kind of the peak of ok we've drawn out drawn out the statement by using the mom night to repeat to her only because of technical difficulties with the phone system and remove them so walking like sorry can hear it happening immediately if you look at the times it's an immediate walk next door make the phone look at where there enter any intervening circumstances there  misconduct in piloting his right turning plan it's a pretty obvious violation they acted with the singular purpose of getting a confession case continually frustrating and efforts to focus on miranda warnings before the call the mom wasn't advised that of what the marine and the rights were will nobody was in would have a very different from under you and i think it would have made any difference to me is no reason to think that this is somehow separate from the interrogation the defendant had no reason to think that you need to know that the earlier i mean this is the most damaging type about and that can be a man against a different trial a confession his own words recorded his own words written his own words admitting to involvement in the offense in this case is particularly troubling because his own words were the only evidence placing him after that scene there is other circumstantial evidence that was presented by way of stipulation in the case some of that evidence co me there's no police involvement in that regard he certainly wouldn't have been using you know another guy in a jail cell to induce the defendant to make a statement and so it still submit that would be factually different circumstance than what's here it's a red herring  says but what happened to the guy confesses to the to the father this is exactly the same situation the dad or the mounties paul on the phone he doesn't have to unequivocal that there's no question but there that there is some question he that he's their net they never walk out of a room they never put him in a sound saying you know we're going to find your phone and call your mom there's never that great that always indicates you know that there always is there is no way the fact that while he's in that same room that no one no one could say based on that that is this is what your mother wants to hear your mother wants to know that you were a stand up guy your mother wants to know that you came clean to the police didn't place the questions before they made the call makes to the police is from that that that's that's should be suppressed we have the wrongful statements and the wrong going to spent by the police and we know that when you suppress statements and evidence and for the the poisonous tree how do we know that separate the phone hard to the man that only happened because they sat there for you minutes and got this kid talking did i mean it would he have made out the same statements to his mother if that interview had ended like the first one well i believe very there  how do we i mean how do we separate the fact that their conduct for that forty minutes we're fine if we do find them is wrong and then based on what those statements more are that he makes these statements to cases more amazed on the gun those cases were completely different because there are those guys were arrested without probable cause they were transported in handcuffs they were brought to the police station they spent twenty two hours that taint if we find i mean if we find that when c invoked that right to remain silent as our cases say that you know that interrogation those things should cease we find that that's pretty involved and none of that i mean elite you know we we have to find that they would have you know immediately called his mother on the phone and handed him the phone which i don't i mean i don't think is what would have happened there i think he would have probably gone to a holding  we can in your view then it would be we can surprise a confession to the police and i'll go forward and the state really should third parties can be used to interrogate and in this case while the police didn't tell them on she'd be used to carry she's being used to induce this statement she's been used since he tried to invoke his right for anything since the detectives realize how important was to him to have the opportunity to talk to his mom throughout that statement she used by the police to induce this statement and she's being used as a vehicle  they said he wasn't being used as an agent of the police but i think the facts here and that videotape really clearly shows that the man is being used as an event just because she's not in on it doesn't mean they're not using her as an agent to e and here they also in marking say the father was not being used as an instrument telling of the police well i think the record here would support a finding that the mom was being used as an instrument value of the