State v. McCune, 2017 Ohio 4426

On May 23, 2016, police arrested Charles McCune after a report he was exposing himself at an Arby’s; he was taken to the police station and interviewed by Officer Nick Barth.
Barth read Miranda warnings from a departmental form; McCune said he understood, signed the waiver form, and confirmed he understood written and spoken English.
During the ~20-minute recorded interview McCune asked how to get a lawyer if he couldn’t afford one and later asked whether he should wait for counsel before answering more questions.
Officer Barth answered McCune’s questions (including that the court could help obtain an attorney) and told him he should stop talking if he wanted counsel; McCune continued speaking and ultimately confessed and gave a written statement.
McCune moved to suppress the statement as an invocation of the right to counsel; the municipal court denied the motion. He pleaded no contest, was convicted of public indecency, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCune invoked his right to counsel, requiring cessation of questioning	State: McCune did not make an unambiguous request; officers properly continued questioning after warnings and answers to his questions	McCune: His questions about getting a lawyer and whether he should wait for counsel constituted an unequivocal demand for an attorney, so questioning should have stopped and statements suppressed	Court held McCune’s remarks were ambiguous questions, not an unambiguous invocation; waiver was valid and motion to suppress properly denied
Whether McCune validly waived Miranda rights	State: Totality of circumstances show a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver (warnings given, comprehension, short interview, no coercion)	McCune: By asking about counsel he effectively invoked right to counsel, negating any waiver	Court held waiver was valid under the totality of the circumstances; no evidence will was overborne

State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (summarizing standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 (state bears burden to prove Miranda waiver)
State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 (right to counsel derives from Fifth Amendment right to silence)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (interrogation must cease after invocation of right to counsel)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be unambiguous)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings required)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion/probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo on appeal)
State v. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d 53 (certain formulations like "I think I need a lawyer" are ambiguous invocations)