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.
43. Should the man's motion to suppress be granted?
After being charged with the bank robberies, the man moved to suppress his confession. The parties agreed, and the court properly found, that the police had reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause, at all times before the man confessed.
In a city, a number of armed bank robberies were committed near closing time by a masked man wearing a white hooded sweatshirt and blue sweatpants. Police saw a man wearing a white hooded sweatshirt and blue sweatpants pacing nervously outside one of the city's banks just before it closed. The police stopped the man and frisked the outer layers of his clothing for weapons, but found none. They asked the man what he was doing outside the bank and pointed out that he was wearing clothing similar to clothing worn by the perpetrator of recent robberies. After pausing for several moments, the man confessed. The police had not provided him with any Miranda warnings.
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 incorrect. The right to stop does not require probable cause. Rather, it is enough to have reasonable suspicion based on objective facts that the individual is involved in criminal activity. The officer may also conduct a limited search of the outer clothing of the suspect in an attempt to discover weapons. Based on the fact pattern here, the police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the man, and their search did not exceed the scope permitted by Terry.
B is incorrect. In general, Miranda holds that when a suspect is questioned in custody by the police his confession will be admissible against him only if he has received the Miranda warnings. Nothing in the fact pattern here indicates that the man was in custody of the police in order to trigger a Miranda warning.
C is incorrect. As mentioned above, the confession was neither a Fourth Amendment violation nor a Miranda violation.