State v. Johnson

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that defense counsel waived any Miranda challenge to the September 23 interview, that the September 24 interview complied with the state constitutional requirement to clarify an equivocal request for counsel, and that the warrant for the defendant’s cell phone records satisfied probable cause and particularity requirements. The court reasoned that the defendant reinitiated the later interview, received complete warnings, expressly waived his rights, and that the warrant was supported by the affidavit’s facts and reasonable inferences and was limited by record types, provider possession, and time period. D’AURIA, J., dissenting in part, would have suppressed the September 24 interview evidence and ordered a new trial because the detective’s response to the request for counsel was inaccurate and insufficiently clarifying.