going was almost comical. At best, the officer was mocking and provoking Anderson. The officer knew what “I plead the Fifth” meant. It is thus baffling that the state court determined that “[b]y asking defendant what he meant by pleading the Fifth, the officers asked a legitimate clarifying question.” The need for clarification presumes some ambiguity or uncertainty. Nothing needed clarification. This situation brings to mind the phrase attributed to a Canadian judge — “won’t take no for an answer” — and later popularized in country music as “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” What about the words “I plead the Fifth” is unclear, ambiguous, or confusing to a reasonable officer? Nothing. See Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 529, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the officer hoped Anderson would
holding that indiana courts will only engage in statutory interpretation if the language of the statute is ambiguous holding that an unequivocal invocation of the fifth amendment right to counsel must be presented in a manner that a reasonable police officer under similar circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for the presence of an attorney recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding in the context of the invocation of the right to counsel that interpretation is only required where the defendants words understood as ordinary people would understand them are ambiguous recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel