Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008).
Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues:
The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually conducted a search of Fred's home or were merely "bluffing" to induce cooperation from Fred. Assuming that no such unwarranted search was actually being conducted, there was no impermissible search and seizure of Fred's home. Provided Fred still (reasonably) believed that he was free to terminate the interview and leave when he volunteered the confession, that evidence should not be excluded under Miranda (and related) doctrine and principles.
However, the police did seize Fred's vehicle, which was an impermissible violation of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. At that point, police had no probable cause to believe a crime was being committed that would have brought the search of his vehicle under the motor vehicle exception to unwarranted search and seizure rules (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008). Therefore, a search of Fred's home and of his vehicle would have required a search warrant issued upon a showing of probable cause to a judge or magistrate of the court with local jurisdiction (Zalman, 2008). Finally, it is clear that police arrested Fred unlawfully, because they did so without first obtaining an arrest warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against arrest without a warrant issued upon probable cause (Dershowitz, 2002).
Two-Tiered...
Seibert (124 S. Ct. 2601) specifically to get around the Miranda requirements (Zalman, 2008). The Seibert decision involved the practice that evolved in many police agencies to purposely delay arresting suspects for the specific purpose of interrogating them first outside of Miranda rules and only issuing the warnings required under Miranda afterwards and then re-interviewing the suspect again (Zalman, 2008).
The practice prohibited by Seibert originated after an earlier (1985) Supreme Court decision in Oregon v. Elstad (470 U.S. 298) where the Supreme Court refused to exclude a confession, because police had unintentionally delayed the formal arrest of the suspect and elicited a confession prior to arresting him after it was already clear that the suspect was in police custody and not free to leave. The Seibert decision allowed such confessions only where the time delay is unintentional and not for purposeful or tactical (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008). Fred will probably not be successful in this approach because his case is distinguishable from Seibert. Specifically, as long as Fred still reasonably believed that he was free to leave throughout the questioning, the interview cannot be considered "custodial" questioning.
References
Dershowitz, A. (2002). Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. New York:
Bantam Books.
Friedman, A. (2005). A History of American Law. New York: Touchstone.
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal Justice Today: An Introductory Text for the 21st
Amendments from the Bill of Rights in U.S. amendments 1st amendment 5th amendment 8th amendment Policy necessary for police investigators when interrogating suspect Type of crime Constitutional right upheld Rationale of the policy Evaluation of the policy Foreign policy dealing with the same issue Subject country Policy name in the country Components Evaluation of the policy Amendments from the Bill of Rights in U.S. 1st Amendment This Amendment has prohibited the making of any law with respect of religion establishment, obstructing a free practice of religion, reducing
Miranda Rights To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating
The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver. Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision.
Case Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and locked up in a Phoenix police station on March 13, 1963 where he was identified by a complaining witness (Samaha, 2012). �Law enforcement officers took him to an Investigation Room where he was questioned before the two officers came out with a written confession that he signed.� During the questioning, Miranda was not notified that he had a right to an attorney and
Miranda Rights Miranda THE PROS AND CONS OF THE MIRANDA RIGHTS Protection against self-incrimination is undoubtedly one of the most basic rights as described in the laws and codes of the American legal system. In the past, this right was often completely abridged, for those that were accused of a crime would be forced to confess their guilt through various forms of torture. But under American law, the protection against self-incrimination infers that