Opinion ID: 2433485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Request for Counsel

Text: The Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self incrimination provides an accused the right to counsel during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Once an accused requests counsel, questioning must cease until counsel has been made available, unless the accused initiates further communication with police. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485-486, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885-86, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). This rule applies only where the accused gives a clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent in order to invoke his rights adequately and cut off questioning. United States v. Thompson, 866 F.2d 268, 272 (8th Cir.1989). Nicklasson received warnings in compliance with the requirements of Miranda . The record shows that Nicklasson asked if he could stop answering questions at any time and ask for an attorney. He was assured that he could. Nicklasson then signed a waiver and voluntarily submitted to questioning without requesting an attorney's presence. Nicklasson claims his question was an ambiguous request for an attorney. We disagree. It was a question seeking clarification of his rights as read to him. He received the requested clarification. Nothing in the record indicates that Nicklasson ever gave a clear, consistent expression of a desire to assert his Fifth Amendment rights and remain silent.