MEMORANDUM **

Because an informant who gave accurate information in the past may be presumed trustworthy, even with the informant’s criminal history included, the affidavit would have supported a finding of probable cause. United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1396-97 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, the district court- did not err in denying Ellison’s motion to suppress physical evidence and motion for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). See United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1554-56 (9th Cir. 1995).

Ellison’s statement “should I have a lawyer,” even considered in light of his stated desire to avoid self-incrimination, was not an unequivocal request for counsel. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1186-88 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err in.denying Ellison’s motion to suppress statements made after his arrest.

AFFIRMED.