In People v. Saucedo-Contreras (2012) 55 Cal.4th 203, the defendant was admonished and indicated he understood his Miranda rights, then was asked whether he was willing to waive them. After his initial response--"'if you can bring me a lawyer, that way I, I with who . . . that way I can tell you everything that I know and everything that I need to tell you and someone to represent me'"-- the officer asked several questions to clarify the defendant's wishes. (Saucedo-Contreras, at pp. 206-207.) Saucedo-Contreras held that the initial response was sufficiently ambiguous to justify the clarification questions, the questions were not coercive, and the further responses made clear that the defendant was willing to speak to the officer without an attorney present. (Id. at p. 207.)