ANALYSIS A. Denial of Motion to Suppress Confession Peters appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confession, claiming he unambiguously invoked his right to counsel when he said, “I’d like to get to that part now.” “In reviewing the district court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we review questions of law de novo and questions of fact for clear error.” United States v. Ford, 333 F.3d 839, 843 (7th Cir.2003). Peters does not contest on appeal the magistrate judge’s factual findings which were adopted by the district court; rather, Peters disputes the legal effect of his words, arguing he did invoke his right to counsel, a question we review de novo. See id. Because Peters already had been advised of his right to counsel and waived it, Peters’ h Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Diaz v. Senkowski, 76 F.3d 61, 63-64 (2d
holding i might want to talk to an attorney to be ambiguous holding that doyle applied to statement as regards to what happened this evening i want to talk to my attorney holding that a defendants statement that he did not want to talk about what he did the night before but was willing to talk about lighter subjects was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent in part because the defendant previously exhibited willingness to talk with police holding maybe i should talk to a lawyer to be ambiguous holding suspects contradictory answers on miranda waiver form that he would answer questions without an attorney and that he wanted to talk to a lawyer to be ambiguous