State v. Saldierna, 242 N.C. App. 347

Defendant Saldierna, 16, was interrogated in a custodial setting after Charlotte-area burglaries.
He asked to call his mother during the interview; officers later resumed questioning.
The waiver form was bilingual, with initialed rights including a right to have a parent present.
The trial court found the request to speak to his mother was ambiguous and that no right was violated.
On appeal, the court held the ambiguity triggered a right to clarification under 7B‑2101(a)(3) and remanded to suppress the confession.
The court noted a 2015 statutory amendment extending protections to younger juveniles, supporting the need for cautious interpretation of ambiguous requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mom-call request was an unambiguous invocation	Saldierna unambiguously invoked the parent right	Kelly was not obligated to clarify an ambiguous statement	Ambiguity required clarification; not an unambiguous invocation
If ambiguous, whether 7B‑2101 requires officer clarification	Clarification required by 7B‑2101(a)(3)	No duty to clarify when ambiguous under Miranda framework	Officer must clarify ambiguity under 7B‑2101(a)(3) per the juvenile protections
Effect of ambiguity on waiver validity	Ambiguity undermines knowing waiver	Waiver still valid under totality of circumstances	Waiver not sustained; remand to suppress the confession

State v. Branham, 153 N.C.App. 91 (N.C. App. 2002) (unambiguous parental request required halt of interrogation)
State v. Smith, 317 N.C. 100 (N.C. 1986) (unambiguous request to wait for parent warranted cessation)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clarity required for invoking counsel; no duty to clarify ambiguous entitlements under Miranda)
Golphin, 352 N.C. 364 (N.C. 2000) (juvenile invocation of right to remain silent must be unambiguous)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (S. Ct. 2011) (age relevant to custody analysis; informs juvenile protections during interrogation)