conversation is not wholly one-sided, it is likely that the officers will say or do something that clearly would be ‘interrogation.’ In that event, the question would be whether a valid waiver of the right to counsel and the right to silence had occurred, that is, whether the purported waiver was knowing and intelligent and found to be so under the totality of the circumstances, including the necessary fact that the accused, not the police, reopened the dialogue with the authorities. Id. at 1044-45, 103 S.Ct. 2830 (quoting Edwards, 451 U.S. at 486 n. 9, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (emphasis added)). Because Bradshaw was a plurality opinion, we believe it important to consider Justice Powell’s concurrence. See generally Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal quotation marks
holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding of the court is the position taken by member who concurs in the judgment on the narrowest grounds holding that when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five justices the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taking by those members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds holding of fragmented court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds holding that the supreme court can affirm a trial justices decision on grounds other than those stated by the trial justice