Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statement that he would “just as soon wait” until he had an attorney before talking to the police [Statement 1], followed immediately by his statement that he was willing to discuss the “circumstances” [Statement 2], was not an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel or a statement declaring an intention to remain silent. People v. McKinney, 794 N.W.2d at 614-15 (internal citation omitted). However, the crux of this case is whether Detective Hod-shire’s comment “Well that’s fine, but like I said” was interrogation. If Hodshire’s statement was interrogation, then the Michigan Supreme Court improperly used McKinney’s second statement in determining that he did not unequivocally request counsel. See Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 100, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984) . The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that after a suspect unambiguously requests counsel the suspects responses to further interrogation may not be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of the initial request
B. holding that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel
C. holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation
D. holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview
E. holding that interrogation must cease if the suspect unambiguously asserts his right to counsel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.