Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to be uncontested that Officer Watson's pepper spray was still snapped and secured on his belt after the incident. 27 .See Spring, 479 U.S. at 576-77, 107 S.Ct. at 858-59 (citing Moran, 475 U.S. at 422, 106 S.Ct. at 1141) (for a Miranda waiver to be valid, police are not required to supply information that would merely affect the wisdom of the waiver); State v. Kaahanui, 69 Haw. 473, 747 P.2d 1276, 1281 (1987) (the Miranda rights waiver is calibrated "to ensure the voluntary and knowing nature of the waiver, not its ultimate wisdom”); State v. Norfolk, 221 Neb. 810, 381 N.W.2d 120, 127 (1986) ("In reference to a waiver of the rights designated in the Miranda warning, intelligent is not synonymous with prudent, and intelligence is not equated with wisdom.”) (citation omitted); 3 (1988) (<HOLDING>); State v. Domagalski, 127 Wis.2d 563, 378 
 Holding statements: (A) holding request to lie down and think about what happened  not a clear invocation of the right to silence (B) holding a suspects request for some time to think alone was not an invocation of the right to silence (C) holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights (D) holding defendants request to lay down and think about what happened did not constitute invocation of right to silence as not every break in questioning compels renewed administration of the miranda warnings (E) holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights
Output (English): holding a juveniles request to speak to a probation officer is not a per se invocation of fifth amendment rights