Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 863 (Alaska App.2006). [34] 34. Crawford, 100 P.3d at 441 (quoting Elstad, 470 U.S. at 310-11, 105 S.Ct. at 1294) (alteration in. Crawford). 35 . Elstad, 470 U.S. at 311, 105 S.Ct. at 1294 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 36 . 903 P.2d 1090 (Alaska App.1995). [37] 37. Id. at 1098 (citations omitted). 38 . Id. at 1099 n. 4 (citing United States v. Knight, 395 F.2d 971, 975 (2nd Cir.1968)). 39 . Id. at 1098. 40 . See Moreau v. State, 588 P.2d 275, 279-80 & n. 13 (Alaska 1978); Longley v. State, 776 P.2d 339, 343-44 (Alaska App.1989). 41 . See Munson v. State, 123 P.3d 1042, 1048 (Alaska 2005) (citing Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994)). 42 . See Berghuis, 130 S.Ct. at 2259-60 (<HOLDING>); State v. Bailey, 714 S.W.2d 590, 593 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent (B) holding that a suspect who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent must do so unambiguously (C) holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously (D) holding that police may continue questioning a suspect until he unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent (E) holding that an accused must unambiguously invoke the right to remain silent
Output (English): recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent