How have the courts interpreted the appellant's right to counsel in his search and seizure case?

As to appellant's statements about looking to grow marijuana in the mountains, the trial court properly held that appellant reinitiated his discussion with officers despite twice previously invoking his right to counsel. " '[A]n accused ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with police.' [Citation.] An accused 'initiates' such dialogue when he speaks words or engages in conduct that can be 'fairly said to represent a desire' on his part 'to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.' [Citation.] In the event he does in fact 'initiate' dialogue, the police may commence interrogation if he or she validly waives his rights. [Citations.]" (People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 648-649.)