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 Dís 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 Dís 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
d) No, unless the investigation had focused exclusively on D at the
time he came to the station.
2 and 3 are based on the following facts:
is pulled over for speeding by Officer Oscar.
While Oscar is obtaining Driverís license and registration, he
notices a ďsuspiciousĒ package on the seat behind Driver.
After calling in Driverís 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).
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.
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 Driverís trial for possession of drugs with intent to
sell, the government wants to introduce the drugs and Driverís inconsistent
statements to help establish his knowledge and ownership of the drugs in the
2. Under which of the following theories (if any) are the drugs in the package admissible?
Search incident to a valid
custodial arrest, since the package was in the passenger compartment.
The automobile exception, due to the inherent mobility of the vehicle.
Inventory, if the department has a policy that permits impoundment of the
vehicle and opening of the package
b) II only e) II and III only
c) III only f) I, II and III
Assuming the arrest was valid, are the statements Driver made admissible
at his trial?
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.
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.
The first statement is admissible since Driver was not yet in custody; the
second statement is inadmissible since no warnings were given.
Both statements are inadmissible since once Oscar decided to arrest to Driver,
he was in custody for purposes of Miranda and warnings were required.
Other than words or actions attendant to arrest or custody, interrogation for
purposes of Miranda is either express questioning or the functional equivalent,
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
words or actions by the police that cause the defendant to feel the coercive
pressures associated with interrogation.