Does a Defendant's request to see his probation officer invoke his Fifth Amendment right?

4 The dissent suggests that although it is clear in the present case that defendant requested to see his probation officer out of a desire for help in how to conduct himself with the police (cf. People v. Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 383, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793), we should not find that such a request invoked defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. The dissent apparently argues that no invocation of Fifth Amendment rights occurred, because once defendant's request was denied, defendant was willing to continue the interrogation with the police. Under such an analysis, of course, the police could ignore a defendant's request for an attorney and still argue that any subsequent confession was properly obtained, since the defendant was "willing" to continue the interrogation in the absence of his attorney. The dissent's approach flies directly in the face of Miranda, which as we have noted, explicitly holds that "(i)f the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present." (384 U.S. at p. 474, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1628. See also People v. Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 384, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793.)