Opinion ID: 1298407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: taylor's request for counsel

Text: 1. Taylor contends that her statement, Can I have a lawyer present when I do that? followed by Okay when told she could, was an unambiguous request for counsel that required the cessation of all questioning and that her entire ensuing statement is therefore inadmissible. We agree. A suspect who asks for a lawyer at any time during a custodial interrogation may not be subjected to further questioning by law enforcement until an attorney has been made available or until the suspect reinitiates the conversation. [2] If the police persist in questioning a suspect who has requested that counsel be present, any resulting statements made by the suspect are inadmissible in the State's case-in-chief. [3] In Davis v. United States, [4] the United States Supreme Court stated that a suspect must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. [5] The Supreme Court found that the suspect's statement, Maybe I should talk to a lawyer, was ambiguous and therefore not a clear request for counsel that required the cessation of questioning. [6] This Court reached the same result in Jordan v. State, [7] where the suspect said he might need a lawyer and the police continued to interrogate him. This Court held that this reference to a lawyer was ambiguous and that the suspect's ensuing statement was therefore admissible. [8] Since the statement in Taylor's case was videotaped and there are no relevant additional facts, the trial court's application of the law to the undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. [9] We conclude, based on our review of the videotaped statement, that Taylor unambiguously requested a lawyer to assist her when answering Captain Simmons's questions about what happened in the Pizza Hut. Unlike the suspects in Davis and Jordan, Taylor did not use equivocal words such as might or maybe when referring to her desire for a lawyer. She was also not referring to a need for counsel sometime in the future, and she did not volunteer information at any time during her statement. [10] Her desire for counsel was not ambiguous simply because it was articulated in the form of a question; it is common for people to ask for things by saying Can I have ... ? Under the circumstances, a reasonable police officer would have understood that Taylor asked if she could have a lawyer because she wanted one. [11] Her later response to Captain Simmons's request for her to tell it just like it isHow can I do that without a lawyer?further illustrates Taylor's belief that she needed a lawyer to assist during the police interrogation. In addition, we are troubled by Captain Simmons's response to Taylor's initial reference to a lawyer, which appeared to be an attempt to steer Taylor away from asking for the assistance of a lawyer. Taylor's request for counsel at the beginning of her interview was unambiguous and the police failure to cease the interrogation compels the suppression of her entire October 6, 1999, statement. [12]