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.
29. If the rival moves to suppress his admission about killing his neighbor, the court should
As the rival attempted to get up, the deputy pinned his arms behind his back. Another deputy threatened, «Tell us what you did with the marijuana farmer or we will shut you down and see your family on relief.» The rival responded that he had killed the marijuana farmer in a fight but did not report the incident because he did not want authorities to enter his land and discover his marijuana crop. Instead, he buried him behind the barn. The rival was thereafter charged with murder.
A marijuana farmer had been missing for several months. The sheriff's department received an anonymous tip that a rival marijuana farmer had buried the marijuana farmer in a hillside about 200 yards from the rival's farmhouse. The sheriff's deputies went to the rival's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. They also searched the adjacent fields on the rival's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barbed wire and discovered clothing that belonged to the marijuana farmer hanging on a scarecrow. The rival observed their discovery and began shooting. The deputies returned fire. The rival dashed to his pickup truck to escape. Unable to start the truck, he fled across a field toward the barn. A deputy tackled him just as he entered the barn.
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
A is correct. The rival was tackled and had his arms pinned beneath his back, which amounts to being in custody for purposes of Miranda. The rival was also subject to interrogation; although the deputy's wording was not exactly a question, it was a statement that was meant to elicit a response from the rival, and it will be considered an «interrogation» for constitutional purposes. Because the rival was subject to custodial interrogation without voluntarily waiving his rights under Miranda, his statements to the deputy about the murder should be suppressed.
B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The most applicable reason for suppressing the confession is the involuntariness of the statement made during what amounted to custodial interrogation. The warrantless entry, even if in violation of the rival's constitutional rights, is not a sufficient basis to suppress the confession. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would not exclude an otherwise properly received confession.
C is incorrect. It is irrelevant that the officer was in «hot pursuit» of the rival when the questioning occurred. The correct basis for excluding the statement is that it was involuntarily made during what amounted to custodial interrogation.
D is incorrect. The underlying reason for the search, whether seen as a warrantless or an emergency search, has only a minimal effect on the determination of the admissibility of the confession. The rival's confession should be inadmissible because he did not voluntarily waive his constitutional rights, regardless of whether the police had the right to be there.