State v. Acquin, 103 S. Ct. 3570 - Supreme Court 1983

Therefore, our analysis must focus on (1) whether there was a reasonable necessity for the admission of the statement, and (2) whether the statement was supported by the equivalent guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness essential to other evidence admitted under the traditional hearsay exceptions.

Because counsel is uniquely prepared to assist a suspect in making an intelligent and knowing decision whether to speak or stand mute, we have concluded that questioning of a suspect must cease once a clear request for counsel has been made.

Our Supreme Court observed that it had "endorsed the stop and clarify rule and followed it for more than a decade prior to Davis.

Finally, the defendant relies on pre-Davis precedent, in which our Supreme Court held that the federal constitution requires police officers upon the defendant's making of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney to cease questioning immediately and to clarify the statement.

We previously have held that the trial court must make two determinations in assessing the admissibility of a confession made during custodial interrogation following a claimed warrantless arrest:(1) whether or not the defendant has been seized; and (2) whether or not there was probable cause for the seizure.

The court further held that `[i] f the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease'; id., 473-74; and `[i] f the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.'Id., 474

"[A] person has been `seized'within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. "

[CITATION] Connecticut Reports: Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of …