473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. “To adequately invoke this right- and effectively cut off questioning, a suspect must indicate ‘a clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 955 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Thompson, 866 F.2d 268, 272 (8th Cir.1989)). “We consider the defendant’s statements as a whole to determine whether they indicate an unequivocal decision to invoke the right to remain silent.” Id. After Adams said “Nah, I don’t want to talk, man. I mean, I,” he immediately proceeded to engage in an exchange with Ball. The phrase “I mean” signaled that Adams intended to clarify the statement, “I don’t want to talk; man,” and the statement was therefore ambiguous. See United States v. Havlik, 710 F.3d 818, 822 (8th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Adams thereafter continued to talk with Ball
holding that verbal threats such as we going to get you you better drop the suit do not rise to the level of adverse action holding the statement shouldnt i have an attorney so you dont ask me any illegal questions as an equivocal request for counsel holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute holding that the statement i guess you better get me a lawyer then was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to an attorney because the phrase i guess was equivocal 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