reinitiates further conversation. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (“[A]n accused, ..., having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”). B. Voluntary, Knowing, and Intelligent Waiver of Rights Once a defendant invokes his right to counsel, the police must cease all interrogation. See Ketchum, y of further questioning by initiating communication with the police and voluntarily waiving his constitutional rights. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045-46, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Substantive questioning may continue only if
holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that an employers inquiry into the reason for an employees work absences was a permissible jobrelated inquiry under the ada holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable holding that defendants inquiry as to what was going to happen next was not merely a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship and instead evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim