Which case requires the right to an attorney at the time the suspect requests a lawyer?

Prepare for the Search and Seizure Module 10 Test with comprehensive flashcards and multiple choice questions, complete with hints and explanations. Get ready to excel in your exam!

The main idea is the timing of the right to counsel during police questioning. Escobedo v. Illinois holds that once a suspect asks for a lawyer, the interrogation must stop and access to an attorney must be provided. Denying that request or continuing to question without counsel violates the Sixth Amendment and can render statements inadmissible. This is why Escobedo is the best answer: it directly establishes that the right to an attorney attaches at the moment the suspect requests one.

Miranda v. Arizona also protects rights during custodial interrogation and requires warnings, and it supports having counsel present, but the specific rule about stopping questioning when counsel is requested is rooted in Escobedo. The other cases address different issues: Gideon v. Wainwright extends the right to counsel to trials for defendants who can’t afford an attorney, and Katz v. United States deals with privacy under the Fourth Amendment.