State v. Lee

Summary

The court affirmed suppression of Lee’s custodial statements because, after invoking his rights to counsel and silence, Lee’s questions about why he was charged merely sought clarification and did not constitute reinitiation of communication. The detective then improperly interrogated Lee before Lee agreed to talk, and that interrogation produced Lee’s subsequent agreement and incriminating statements. The court reviewed the undisputed video-recorded facts and the application of law de novo.