Carey

In this case, we hold that the police may not “clarify” unambiguous and repeated refusals to say anything after a cus *102 todial suspect has been advised of and indicates that he understands his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ].

Leon Carnal Carey was convicted in a court trial of a plethora of serious offenses which resulted in a determinate state prison sentence of 25 years 8 months. 1 He appeals, contending: “The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his confession.” The contention is meritorious and the judgment must be reversed.

Over 20 years ago, our United States Supreme Court, in the landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436 , said, “ [o]nce warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of…