Does Officer Camacho violate Doe's Miranda right by subjecting him to continued custodial interrogation after he wrote "no" beside question No. 9?

Doe's allegations raise a difficult question: Did Officer Camacho violate Doe's Miranda rights by subjecting him, after he wrote "no" beside question No. 9, to continued custodial interrogation? See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966) ("If the individual indicates in any

Page 791

Doe contends that by responding "no" to question No. 9 he invoked his right to counsel. That question specifically referred to talking "without having a lawyer present." See note 2, above. The rule in Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 95 (1984) may be implicated: "if the accused invoked his right to counsel, courts may admit his responses to further questioning only on finding that he (a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right he had invoked."