4th A
A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she
asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours
later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a
different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating
statements about the robbery. At the woman’s trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating
statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.
Sustain the objection, because the police did not honor the woman’s request
Officer stopped D for weaving in and out of traffic. When Officer noticed D had trouble standing, he performed a field sobriety test, which D failed. Without giving Miranda warnings, Officer then asked if he had been drinking, and D admitted to recent drinking and drug use. Is this admissible?
The detainee answered a few questions during interrogation, but then requested an attorney. He was allowed to meet with his attorney three times. Subsequently, in the absence of counsel, police resumed interrogating the detainee, and he made incriminating statements. Are these statements admissible?
No, the statements must be excluded from evidence because they were obtained in violation of detainee's right to counsel.
D was arrested without probable cause and brought to the police station. The police read D his Miranda warnings three times and permitted D to see two friends. After being at the station for six hours, D confessed. Is this confession admissible?
No, the confession must be excluded because it is the direct result of the unlawful arrest
D was arrested, was given Miranda warnings and confessed to a murder. He was then brought before a judge, who appointed counsel to represent D. Later that day, police officers went to D’s cell and asked him to help them find the weapon he used to commit the murder. The police gave D a fresh set of Miranda warnings and convinced him to write a letter apologizing to his victim’s widow. Later, the appointed attorney met with Defendant. At trial, the attorney argued that the letter was taken in violation of D’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. How will this argument prevail?
It will not. D's sixth amendment right to counsel was not violated because D did not request an attorney and therefore waived his sixth amendment right.
Police stopped D for a traffic violation, told him that they suspected him of carrying drugs, and asked for permission to search the car. D consented. The officers found a bag containing cocaine. Does D's consent extend to the bag?
Yes, because D knew the police were searching for drugs and did not place any restriction on his consent, it was reasonable for the police to believe that the consent extended to all areas where drugs might be found (even closed containers).
D, a prisoner, was escorted from his cell to a conference room in which he was questioned by two corrections officers about pre-incarceration criminal activity. He was told repeatedly that he was free to leave at any time to go back to his cell. He was not restrained and sometimes the conference room door was open. On the other hand, he was not given Miranda warnings and the corrections officers were armed. Was D in custody?
No
D was in jail on a battery charge. Because the police suspected D of an unrelated murder, they placed an undercover officer in D’s cell. The officer elicited damaging confessions from D regarding the murder. Is this confession admissible?
Yes, because interrogation did not violate the Sixth Amendment because D had not been charged with the murder.
Police illegally search a warehouse and discover marijuana, but do not seize it. The police later return to the warehouse with a valid warrant based on information totally unrelated to the illegal search. Can the marijuana seized be used as evidence?
Yes, if police seize the marijuana pursuant to the warrant, then the marijuana is admissible. (independent source exception)
D was arrested and charged with robbery. At his initial appearance, he requested the aid of counsel. After D’s appearance, the police came to D’s cell, gave him Miranda warnings, and questioned D about a crime unrelated to the robbery. D made incriminating statements. Was this a Sixth Amendment Violation?
No, D request for counsel at his initial appearance is offense specific to the robbery, not the unrelated crime
A police officer stopped a vehicle for speeding. Upon approaching the vehicle, he smelled burnt marijuana and saw an envelope on the floor marked with the street name of a certain type of marijuana. He ordered the car’s four occupants out of the vehicle and arrested them for unlawful possession of marijuana. Having only one pair of handcuffs and no assistance, he could not secure the arrestees. He had them stand apart from each other and proceeded to search the vehicle. During the search, the officer discovered cocaine in a jacket in the vehicle. Was this a valid search?
Yes, a valid search incident to arrest either because an unsecured arrestee easily could have gained access to the vehicle, or because the officer could reasonably believe that the vehicle contained evidence of the drug charge on which he arrested the occupants.
D was arrested and charged with robbery. At his initial appearance, he requested the aid of counsel. After D’s appearance, the police came to D’s cell, gave him Miranda warnings, and questioned D about a crime unrelated to the robbery. D made incriminating statements. Was D’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated?
No, D’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because D did not request counsel in dealing with the interrogation.
The detainee cut off interrogation by asking for an attorney, but then asked the interrogating officer, “What is going to happen to me now?” The officer explained that the detainee did not have to talk, and the detainee said he understood. The officer then described the charge against the detainee and gave him fresh Miranda warnings. The detainee then confessed after taking a polygraph test. Is the confession admissible?
Yes, because the detainee had validly waived his 5th A rights
If the police arrest or search someone erroneously but in good faith, thinking that they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, search warrant, or law, does the exclusionary rule apply to any evidence seized?
No, the exclusionary rule does not apply
what are the 3 elements of 6th A right to counsel?
Applies only once adversarial proceedings have begun (once charged)
Right to have counsel present at all critical stages of prosecution (post-charge lineup, post-charge questioning, preliminary hearings, etc.)
Offense specific
At 3 a.m. on the state turnpike, a driver was stopped for driving 30 m.p.h. over the posted speed
limit. Because of the speed at which she was traveling and because the driver possessed an out-of-state driver’s license, the officer decided to place the driver under arrest and take her to the station house. Under state law, such an arrest is valid. After placing the driver in his patrol car, the officer searched the passenger area of the automobile. Under the front seat he found a small package containing what he immediately determined to be marijuana. If the driver is charged with possession of marijuana, how should the court rule on her motion to suppress the marijuana?
Grant it, because the officer had already placed the driver in the patrol car.
When is someone in custody?
(1) A reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave (Objective test, totality of the circumstances)
(2)The environment present the same inherently coercive pressure as the station during questioning, (Location of questioning, police still have weapons drawn, length of questioning, Was the detainee told they could not leave?)
After D was charged with murder and arrested for aggravated robbery, police placed an informant in his cell, telling the informant to keep his ears open. The informant told D that he looked like he had something serious on his mind. D responded that he had just shot a man in the head and taken his money. At trial, after D testified that an accomplice had shot and robbed the victim, the informant then testified as to what he heard. Is the D testimony admissible? If so, why?
The informant’s testimony was admissible for impeachment purposes.
does exclusionary rule apply to no-knock entries?
No!
How is 6th A waived?
Must be knowing and voluntary