that right, Minnesota law affords greater protection to a suspect invoking his right to counsel than does federal law. Under Minnesota law, when a suspect’s request is “equivocal or ambiguous” but “subject to a construction that the accused is requesting counsel, all further questioning must stop except that narrow questions designed to ‘clarify’ the accused’s true desires respecting counsel may continue.” State v. Risk, 598 N.W.2d 642, 647-48 (Minn.1999) (quoting State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 223 (Minn.1988)). Here, well before he was given a Miranda warning, Ortega asked the interrogating law enforcement agents, “Am I supposed to have a lawyer present?” At a minimum, this statement was an equivocal request for an attorney. See State v. Doughty, 472 N.W.2d 299, 303 (Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the record indicates that the agent
holding that the statement i guess you better get me a lawyer then was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to an attorney because the phrase i guess was equivocal holding that district comets inquiry do you have anything else for the record failed to satisfy requirement that the court clearly ask for objections to the sentence that have not been previously raised holding the statement shouldnt i have an attorney so you dont ask me any illegal questions as an equivocal request for counsel holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel holding that a suspect made an acceptable request for counsel by stating i dont think i want to talk to you anymore without a lawyer