State v. Ridenour

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that under article I, sections 9 and 11 of the Alaska Constitution, when a suspect who has waived Miranda rights later makes an ambiguous request for counsel, interrogating officers must stop questioning and clarify whether the suspect wants a lawyer — a 'stop and clarify' rule that diverges from the federal standard requiring a clear and unambiguous invocation. Because the troopers only referenced Ridenour's right to remain silent, never asked whether he wanted an attorney, and implied that exculpatory evidence might be lost without his cooperation, the court held they failed to reasonably and responsively clarify his intent. It affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of Ridenour's convictions and directed that his post-request statements be suppressed.