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.
6. As to the defendant's motion to suppress, the court should
The defendant moved to suppress the use of her statement to the police officer as evidence on two grounds: first, that the statement was acquired without giving Miranda warnings, and second, that the police officer had deliberately elicited her incriminating statement after she was in custody.
At the station, after being given Miranda warnings, the defendant stated that she wished to remain silent and made no other statements.
A grand jury indicted the defendant on a charge of arson, and a valid warrant was issued for her arrest. A police officer arrested the defendant and informed her of what the warrant stated. However, hoping that the defendant might say something incriminating, he did not give her Miranda warnings. He placed her in the back seat of his patrol car and was driving her to the police station when she said, «Look, I didn't mean to burn the building; it was an accident. I was just burning some papers in a wastebasket.»
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. Miranda warnings need to be given only if the person is subject to custodial interrogation. The defendant was in custody pursuant to the warrant while in the back of the patrol car. However, while the police officer was driving her to the station, she was not subject to interrogation. Her voluntary, spontaneous statement in the vehicle to the officer should not be suppressed on the ground that the officer failed to give her the Miranda warnings. Merely hoping for incriminating statements is insufficient action by the officer to be considered an interrogation for Miranda purposes. The officer did not ask any questions, he did not deliberately elicit any statement, and the statement was knowingly and voluntarily made.
B is incorrect. As explained above, the defendant made her statements in the police vehicle voluntarily and spontaneously, so no custodial interrogation took place. This means there was no requirement that the police officer must give her Miranda warnings. Subsequently, the first ground stated is not a sufficient basis for granting the motion.
C is incorrect. When the police officer merely hoped that the defendant would make incriminating statements, this does not amount to deliberately eliciting the confession. She voluntarily made her incriminating statements, thus rendering the second ground an insufficient basis for granting the motion.
D is incorrect. Neither the first nor the second ground presented to support the defendant's motion is sufficient basis for granting it, as stated above.