With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". seven times whether he wished to continue talking without an attorney before the defendant clearly stated that he would continue talking. We see nothing improper about Munck’s responses to the defendant’s ambiguous statement. See State v. Sundstrom, 131 N.H. 203, 207 (1988) (finding that officers responded properly to defendant’s ambiguous statement by explaining that he could request a lawyer to be present at any time and by clarifying his indecision by asking defendant who his lawyer was and whether he wanted to speak with his lawyer at that time or later); see also State v. Carpentier, 132 N.H. 123, 128 (1989). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant did not unambiguously assert his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. See Sundstrom, 131 N.H. at 207 (<HOLDING>). Instead, the defendant made an ambiguous

A: holding that an officers response to an emergency call does not involve matters within his discretion as an officer
B: holding that the defendants conclusory assertion that he told his counsel he wanted to testify but that counsel failed to call him as witness was insufficient to require a hearing or a response from government but the defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to state his claim with greater specificity
C: holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them
D: holding that defendants statements i dont know and later theres no hurry in response to officers question about whether defendant wanted to call his attorney did not indicate that he was seeking counsel at that time
D.