1.         Police have probable cause to believe that D committed a robbery but they realize they likely do not have enough evidence to convict.  Two officers go to D’s house.  When D answers the door, the officers ask him to accompany them to the station.  He agrees and rides with the officers to the stationhouse.  At the station, he is escorted to an interrogation room.  After he is questioned for about an hour, he gives an incriminating statement about the robbery.  He is then formally placed under arrest, handcuffed and taken for booking.  If D is prosecuted for the robbery, will the statement be suppressed? 

   a) Yes, because the questioning occurred in the coercive environment of the stationhouse and D was not given Miranda warnings.  

   b) Yes, because the officers violated D’s Fourth Amendment rights by making a de facto arrest at his home without a warrant and the statement is the fruit of that 4th Amendment violation.

   c) No, because since D agreed to go to the station, no Miranda warnings were required.

   d) No, unless the investigation had focused exclusively on D at the time he came to the station.

Questions 2 and 3 are based on the following facts:

Driver is pulled over for speeding by Officer Oscar.  While Oscar is obtaining Driver’s license and registration, he notices a “suspicious” package on the seat behind Driver.  After calling in Driver’s license information, Oscar receives a report that Driver is suspected of drug activity.  Oscar decides to do a full custody arrest for the traffic violation (which is permitted in this jurisdiction). 

While waiting for back-up and before placing Driver under formal arrest, Oscar asks Driver several questions about ownership of the vehicle, where he is coming from and going, whether he is involved in any illegal activity, etc. and receives answers from Driver.  Oscar requests permission to search the vehicle, which is denied.  When the back-up officer arrives, Oscar places Driver under arrest, handcuffs him and has the back-up officer transport him to the station.  Oscar remains on the scene and searches the vehicle, finding drugs in the package on the seat.

While en route to the station, the back-up officer engages Driver in conversation and asks several questions about his travels and the vehicle he is driving.  In response to these questions, the back-up officer gets information that conflicts with the story Driver told Oscar.  At Driver’s trial for possession of drugs with intent to sell, the government wants to introduce the drugs and Driver’s inconsistent statements to help establish his knowledge and ownership of the drugs in the car.

2.  Under which of the following theories (if any) are the drugs in the package admissible? 

I. Search incident to a valid custodial arrest, since the package was in the passenger compartment.

II. The automobile exception, due to the inherent mobility of the vehicle.

                             III. Inventory, if the department has a policy that permits impoundment of the vehicle and opening of the package

                                             a) I only                         d)   I and III only  
                                            b) II only                        e)   II and III only
                                            c) III only                        f)   I, II and III  

3.  Assuming the arrest was valid, are the statements Driver made admissible at his trial?     

a) Both statements are admissible, since, regardless of whether there was custody and interrogation, Driver made the statements intending them to be exculpatory and Miranda therefore does not apply.

b) The first statement is admissible since the questioning occurred at a traffic stop before formal arrest; the second statement is admissible since Miranda does not apply in any event to arrests for minor traffic violations.

c) The first statement is admissible since Driver was not yet in custody; the second statement is inadmissible since no warnings were given.

d) Both statements are inadmissible since once Oscar decided to arrest to Driver, he was in custody for purposes of Miranda and warnings were required.

 4. Other than words or actions attendant to arrest or custody, interrogation for purposes of Miranda is either express questioning or the functional equivalent, which is:

a) words or actions by the police which are designed to deliberately elicit an incriminating response.

b) words or actions by the police that a reasonable person would understand as calling for a response.

c) words or actions by the police that they should know are reasonable likely to elicit an incriminating response

d) words or actions by the police that cause the defendant to feel the coercive pressures associated with interrogation.