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.
82. Should the court grant the motion to suppress?
The parolee was charged with rape and has moved to suppress his statement to the parole officer.
After reading a description of a person who had committed a rape, a parole officer noted that the description resembled one of his parolees. The officer called the parolee and asked him to drop by his office. The parolee came to the office and, after about 30 minutes of questioning, admitted having committed the rape. At no time did the officer give the parolee 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. Parolees retain their Fifth Amendment rights. However, they are entitled to receive Miranda warnings only when being subjected to custodial interrogation. In all other contexts, parolees must affirmatively assert the privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
C is incorrect. Law enforcement interrogation is not enough to trigger a requirement that Miranda warnings be given. The suspect must also be «in custody» at the time of the interrogation.
D is incorrect. A probation or parole officer may compel both attendance and truthful answers. However, neither of those entitlements transforms the exchange into a custodial interrogation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984).