should be encouraged rather than discouraged, so long as the communication is truthful, and is not designed, nor is it likely to elicit, an incriminating response. On these facts, therefore, we conclude that the officer’s statement to Allen explaining the results of the lineup did not constitute interrogation. After resolving the interrogation issue, we have little difficulty determining that Allen’s subsequent self-initiated request to speak to Lieutenant Henderson amounted to a valid waiver of his right to counsel. Allen clearly initiated the request to speak with Lieutenant Henderson and knew full well his right to counsel and the consequences of foregoing that right. He had been informed of hi .2d 502 (2000). See also United States v. Williams, 136 F.3d 547, 552-53 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1003, 119 S.Ct. 1139,
holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding that statements given voluntarily and without compelling influences are admissible holding inadmissible a statement made after incomplete miranda advisement but holding a subsequent statement admissible because the court found it was given after a full advisement holding admissible suspects statement to police after being informed that he had been identified in a lineup which the court assumed without deciding was interrogation for purposes of the appeal because the statements were voluntarily made without any coercion and came after the suspect was given and validly waived his miranda rights holding that where a suspect was given miranda warnings and then immediately spoke without police prompting that statement was voluntary and therefore admissible