Which action is considered a violation of the Escobedo rule?

The Escobedo rule, stemming from the Supreme Court case Escobedo v. Illinois, establishes the right of a suspect to have legal counsel present during police interrogations once they have been formally accused of a crime. When law enforcement conducts accusatory questioning in the absence of counsel after a suspect has requested an attorney, it undermines the suspect's rights to proper legal representation and protection against self-incrimination.

Thus, conducting accusatory questioning without counsel present directly violates the Escobedo rule, as it denies the suspect the opportunity to have legal guidance during a critical stage of the criminal process. In this context, the involvement of an attorney is crucial for ensuring that the suspect's rights are safeguarded and that any statements made are not coerced or misleading.

The other options, while they may involve legal implications, do not specifically violate the core element of the Escobedo rule regarding the right to counsel during interrogation.