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.
48. What is the man's best argument for granting his motion?
Charged with robbery, the man has moved to suppress the use of his statement as evidence.
Police, who had probable cause to arrest a man for a series of armed robberies, obtained a warrant to arrest him. At 6 a.m. they surreptitiously entered the man's house and, with guns drawn, went to the man's bedroom, where they awakened him. Startled, the man asked, «What's going on?» and an officer replied, «We've got you now.» Another officer immediately asked the man if he had committed a particular robbery, and the man said that he had. The police then informed him that he was under arrest and ordered him to get dressed.
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
Whether a defendant is in custody is determined by examining: (i) whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave; and (ii) whether the environment offers «the same inherently coercive pressures» that were present at the station house in Miranda. See Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (2012).
Regarding the interrogation requirement, this refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that they should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
A is correct. The most effective argument for why the man's motion should be granted is that he was not given Miranda warnings. Miranda requires warnings to be given if an accused is subject to custodial interrogation, which the defendant was here. First, as to the custody requirement, the defendant was surrounded by multiple police officers who said, «We've got you now,» and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave that environment. It would also be considered a coercive environment because of the fact that guns were pointed at him. As to the interrogation requirement, the police expressly asked the man if he had committed the robbery. Therefore, because the man was subject to custodial interrogation without first being given Miranda warnings, this would be the most effective basis for arguing that the statement should be suppressed.
B is incorrect. If the defendant were to claim involuntariness, he would be facing a more challenging argument than if he were to proceed based on a Miranda violation. He would likely prevail on Miranda grounds given that he was subject to custodial interrogation without first being given proper warnings, as explained above.
C is incorrect. Again, the requirement violated here was that the defendant was subject to custodial interrogation without first being issued Miranda warnings. In fact, there is no requirement that a defendant be told or informed about being arrested except in the context of custodial interrogation under Miranda.
D is incorrect. The police did not need a search warrant, and in fact, the arrest warrant was sufficient to lawfully gain entry into the defendant's home, and therefore this would not be effective grounds for suppressing the statement.