Even if, as the government maintains, the suspect was asking for a “lawyer dog,” he should necessarily have been provided with an opportunity to confer with said dog-lawyer before the interrogation was allowed to continue.
The fact the questioning of the Defendant was allowed to continue without the benefit of his requested canine counsel makes the entire confession of the suspect fruit of the poison tree, and inadmissible as evidence. Without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the state cannot prove its case against Defendant.
Case dismissed
