In Sessoms V

In Sessoms v. Grounds , the court held that

A) because Sessoms's response to the officers was a question, his desire for an attorney was ambiguous and unclear.
B) a suspect must clearly state any request for an attorney, which Sessoms failed to do.
C) Sessoms did not articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.
D) under the circumstances, a reasonable law enforcement officer would have understood Sessoms's statements as an unambiguous request for counsel, which should have cut off any further questioning under clear Supreme Court precedent.