One of this court has addressed whether failing to verbally articulate a desire to remain silent can invoke the right to remain silent. Hodges, 118 Wn. App. at 672. There, the court held that “[sjilence in the face of repeated questioning over a period of time may constitute an invocation of the right to remain silent.” Id. at 673. Under Hodges, the request “need not be articulated so long as it is clear and unequivocal.” Id. ¶15 Cases from other jurisdictions have addressed whether nonverbal conduct can be unequivocal. In United States v. Gordon, 173 F.3d 761, 766 (10th Cir. 1999), for example, the court held that “[n] on-verbal conduct, considered with other factors, can constitute voluntary consent to search.” See also United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125, 1138 (2d Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>); People v. Martinez, 106 Cal. App. 3d 524,
holding that fair use is an affirmative defense recognizing laches as an affirmative defense recognizing an affirmative nod of the head is evidence of an unequivocal expression of understanding holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that refusal to join guerrilla group is itself not affirmative expression of political opinion