With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dep’t of Transp., 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40). “ ‘An arrestee cannot complain about a law enforcement officer’s reasonable interpretation of the arrestee’s ambiguous statements.’” Kasowski, 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40 (quoting Lange v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 201, ¶ 17, 790 N.W.2d 28). We explained that “[a]n arrestee making an ambiguous statement suffers the consequence of that ambiguity.” Kasowski, 2011 ND 92, ¶ 14, 797 N.W.2d 40 (quoting Lange, 2010 ND 201, ¶ 7, 790 N.W.2d 28). However, we recognized that, in some circumstances, when an ambiguity exists as to whether a request to speak to an attorney has been made law enforcement should seek clarification of the ambiguity before denying the statutory right to counsel. See Washburn, 2015 ND 299, ¶ 13, 872 N.W.2d 605 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 8] Here, the parties do not dispute that

A: recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
B: holding that a defendants claim that his attorney did not meet with him or seek out witnesses required a searching inquiry before denying the request for new counsel
C: holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel
D: holding even when a request for an attorney is ambiguous it is incumbent upon law enforcement to seek clarification of the ambiguity before denying the statutory right to counsel
D.