Opinion ID: 2466628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Invocation of Right to Counsel

Text: Bucklew suggests that he invoked his right to counsel during the videotaped statement and that the law enforcement personnel failed to honor his right to counsel by continuing questioning. The videotape reveals: Bucklew: Well do you think I should have an attorney present? Riehl: I can't tell you that Rusty. Bucklew: How fast could you get an attorney here? Riehl: Well, I don't know. I don't, I wouldn't, that would be up to you. Bucklew: I mean, a public defender is all I can handle. Riehl: Ya; ya; if, if, if, if that's what you want to do you just have to tell me that and I Bucklew: I don't know man. Then Bucklew continued telling his version of the events surrounding his relationship with Stephanie Ray. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 480, n. 6, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), interprets the Fifth Amendment to require an actual, unambiguous, unequivocal request for counsel to trigger the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and require that interrogation cease. Bucklew's request here is ambiguous and equivocal. It does not rise to the certainty of expression that constitutes a valid request for an attorney under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence.