Unfortunately, neither detectives nor the Louisiana Supreme Court saw it that way.
The court ruled officers were not required to stop interviewing the 22-year-old over alleged child sex offences, as there was a possibility he was asking for representation from an actual dog -- meaning it was apparently not clear he wanted a human lawyer.
According to the court, police do not have to stop questioning if a suspect "makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer (...) would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel."
"In my view, the defendant's ambiguous and equivocal reference to a 'lawyer dog' does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview," Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton said in a concurrence published in late October.
Also Read
Whether canine lawyers actually exist is another matter altogether -- and there is debate over whether the statement should have been transcribed as "give me a lawyer, dog," with a comma to eliminate the apparent confusion.
Prosecutors told the Washington Post Demesme -- charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile -- went on to make incriminating statements during the October 2015 interview.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content