JURI 575 Quiz Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
Covers the Learn material from Module 7: Week 7.
- When officers engage in a “question first and warn later” interrogation, a suspect’s subsequent Mirandized confession is still admissible.
- Once a police officer reads a suspect his Miranda warnings, and the suspect tells the officer that he does not want to speak or that he wants an attorney, the officer can never reinitiate questioning.
- A defendant must unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.
- A person is “in custody” for Miranda purposes only when he has been placed under formal arrest.
- When a suspect who is in custody makes voluntary statements to an undercover law enforcement officer, there is no requirement that the officer give the suspect Miranda warnings.
- The determination of whether a suspect is “in custody” for purposes of Miranda is a subjective inquiry.
- A suspects statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be excluded from evidence.
- One day Moff Gideon was walking down the street when he was approached by a law enforcement officer. The officer asked Moff if he could ask him a few questions about a burglary that happened a few days prior. Moff agreed to speak to the officer, and he walked with the officer down to the police station. Once they were at the police station, Moff started to have second thoughts. He asked the officer if he could leave, and the officer said “anytime you want to leave is fine.” Moff did not want to seem uncooperative, so he stayed. The officer then questioned Moff for two and a half hours but did not read Moff his Miranda Moff confessed to the burglaries and was placed under arrest. Moff wants to file a motion to suppress the statements he made during questioning. Based on these facts:
- Whether a person has been interrogated for purposes of Miranda requires the court to evaluate:
- Jeremy Bentham was arrested for charges of distribution of cocaine. After he was arrested, officers read Bentham his Miranda warnings and brought him to the police station to ask him questions. Bentham remained silent thereby refusing to answer the police officers’ questions. After one hour of trying to get Bentham to answer questions, an officer decided to try a different method. Knowing that Bentham just recently lost his 2-year-old daughter, instead of asking Bentham a direct question, he said, in Bentham’s presence, “It’s sad that you don’t want to answer any questions. I heard the other day that a little girl who was trying to find candy in her mother’s purse found one of her pills and ate it. It was laced with fentanyl and the little girl died. She was only three and she was so cute. That could have been anyone’s daughter.” Bentham immediately confessed. Bentham’s lawyer moves to suppress the confession arguing that the officer violated Bentham’s right to remain silent when he continued to interrogate Bentham after he chose to remain silent. At trial the judge is likely to:
- After arresting a defendant for charges of possession of child pornography, Officers Cannon and Ball forgot to read the defendant his Miranda Before realizing that they had failed to read him his warnings, they started asking him questions about his collection of child pornography. The defendant told officers that he had a secret stash of child pornography hidden on a computer that was locked inside of a closet in his basement. He told the officers that he kept the key to this closet inside of a desk drawer at his office. The officers obtained a search warrant for his office desk drawer and for the basement closet, and they locate the additional child pornography. At trial the defense attorney moves to suppress his client’s statements and the child pornography. Which of the following answers best describes the result of the suppression motion?
- Officer Brandywine suspected that Tru Steele, a 15-year-old high school student, was involved in a series of bank robberies. Officer Brandywine decided to visit Tru after his high school basketball practice. He walked up to Tru’s coach and asked the coach if he could ask Tru to speak to him. The coach asked Tru to come speak to the officer and the three of them went back to the coach’s office. The officer then began asking Tru about the bank robberies. Tru said that he didn’t know anything about the bank robberies, and that he wanted to call his parents. The officer told Tru that he could call his parents in a little bit, and he continued to ask him questions about the bank robberies. After about 40 minutes of questioning, Tru confessed. After Tru confessed, the officer placed Tru under arrest and read him his Miranda warnings. The defense attorney Sles a motion to suppress Tru’s confession alleging that the officer violated Miranda by not reading Tru his Miranda warnings prior to questioning him. Which of the following facts is likely to be considered by the court in determining whether Tru was in custody and therefore should have been read his Miranda warnings prior to questioning:
- In which of the following scenarios does an officer violate the principles established in Miranda?
- Johnny Rocket was arrested on murder charges and held in custody for those charges at Ferris Wheel Prison in New York. In June of 2019, officers went to Ferris Wheel to ask Johnny if he would be willing to talk to them about a separate complaint that he had molested his child. Johnny invoked his right to counsel and the police officers left. A few days later, the officers came back to the prison, and requested to speak to Johnny about the molestation complaint again. They read Johnny his Miranda warnings and he signed a waiver. He then confessed to molesting his child. Under these facts, Johnny’s confession:
- In 100-200 words, describe the factors the court considers when determining whether a person is considered “in custody” for purposes of Miranda.
- Define what the term “interrogation” means for purposes of Miranda.
- In 100-200 words, explain what the Edwards rule is and how it impacts custodial interrogations.