REDACTED

potential suspects. The circumstances surrounding the detectives' interview were markedly different. 21 Because the People did not demonstrate that the failure by Detectives Mehl and Appel to scrupulously honor the defendant's invocation of his right to counsel was justified by an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from an immediate danger associated with other suspects at the theater, the Court finds that their post-Miranda questions are unconstitutional. Accordingly, the

statements made by the defendant after he asked, "how do I get a lawyer?," are suppressed. 22

D.

Voluntariness

The defendant maintains that "any statements" he made to Detectives Mehl and Appel "after he invoked his right to counsel must be suppressed because they

21

"A request for counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal to be sufficient." People v. Lynn, 278 P.3d 365, 367 (Colo. 2012) (citing Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994)). In Lynn, the defendant asked, "[w]hen can I talk to a lawyer?" !d. The Court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances-including the fact that the defendant was in custody and made the request while his Miranda rights were being recited-the defendant's question "was an unambiguous request for counsel." !d. at 368-70. The prosecution does not respond to the defendant's contention that he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel when he asked the detectives, "how do I get a lawyer?" See generally Response. Accordingly, the Court treats the defendant's contention as undisputed. 42

22