Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
18. The best argument for excluding it would be that
The court denied the motion to suppress the jewelry. The student moves to suppress the use of the statement he made to his parents.
The student was charged with the burglaries.
The officers believed that the jewelry had been taken in one of the burglaries. They arrested the student, took him to the station, and gave him Miranda warnings. The student asked to see a lawyer. The police called the student's parents to the station. When the student's parents arrived, the police asked them to speak with the student. The police put the student and his parents in a room and secretly recorded their conversation with a concealed electronic device. The student broke down and confessed to his parents that he had committed the burglaries.
The police suspected that a 16-year-old high school student had committed a series of burglaries. Two officers went to the student's high school and asked the principal to call the student out of class and to search his backpack. While the officers waited, the principal took the student into the hall where she asked to look in his backpack. When the student refused, the principal grabbed it from him, injuring the student's shoulder in the process. In the backpack, she found jewelry that she turned over to the officers.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
D is correct. Once the student requested to see an attorney, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel attached. Any deliberate attempts to elicit incriminating statements should have then ended at that time. The student's best argument to have his statements to his parents suppressed is that, by arranging the meeting with his parents, the police were attempting to elicit incriminating statements in violation of his request for an attorney, without a valid waiver. The statements made by the student as a result of what amounted to a custodial interrogation should therefore be suppressed.
A is incorrect. This reasoning falls short because the statements made by the student were voluntary, and he must, therefore, show that: (i) he was in custody; and (ii) an interrogation occurred. When he invoked his right to counsel, what amounted to a custodial interrogation (the arrangement of the meeting between the student and his parents at the police station) must have stopped. Consequently, the most effective argument is not based on whether he was in custody, but rather, whether they continued questioning following his invocation of the right to counsel.
B is incorrect. The police are not required to immediately obtain a lawyer for a defendant when he invokes his right to counsel, they are only required to cease their questioning. Only if the statements made by the student after he requested an attorney were the result of «interrogation» will the statements be suppressed.
C is incorrect. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police station. The police officers were within their rights to overhear and record any conversations that occurred. Only if the student's statements were made pursuant to interrogation will they be suppressed.