Question 1

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
-Let's now assume that Billy was in fact read Miranda warning before he was brought into the interrogation room. Let's also assume that, before he broke down and gave his confession, he had been through three grueling hours of interrogation, during which time he remained mostly silent. Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court held that a suspect's silence during an interrogation does not mean that he or she has invoked the right to remain silent. Rather, the suspect must explicitly invoke the right in order for it to be considered invoked. In this case, Billy remained mostly silent during the interrogation and did not invoke his right to remain silent, so his statement about the body will likely be admissible. The fact that he was not read his Miranda rights during his initial arrest is irrelevant, as he was eventually read them before the interrogation. Similarly, the fact that the interrogation was lengthy is not enough to render his statement inadmissible, unless the interrogation was so lengthy that it constituted coercion. Nix v. Williams involves the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, which is not relevant to the admissibility of this statement.

Question 2

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
-The lack of Miranda warnings in this situation will:

Accepted Answer

A custodial interrogation is when a person is taken into custody and is being interrogated. In this case, Billy was in custody at the police station and was being interrogated by the detective. Because he was not read his Miranda rights, any statements made during this interrogation are likely to be thrown out as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This would include his confession about the murder and the location of the body. However, any statements made regarding his DUI arrest would not be affected by the lack of Miranda warnings.

Question 3

Completion:
-_____________ involves police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Completion:
-_____________ involves police-initiated action that relies on...

Question 4

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
-Let's assume that an appellate court throws out the confession because Billy was not read his Miranda rights. The gun and any DNA evidence found next to the dead body could be considered:

Accepted Answer

The confession made by Billy in the interrogation room is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" because it was obtained through a custodial interrogation without Billy being informed of his Miranda rights. Therefore, any evidence obtained as a result of that confession, such as the gun and DNA evidence found next to the dead body, would also be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible in court.

Question 5

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
-Billy was not read his Miranda Rights prior to being asked some basic questions on the side of the road. Yet, a video tape of him slurring his words in response to the officer's questions was played at trial. If the Supreme Court were to hear an appeal based on this information, it would:

Accepted Answer

The Miranda Rights only need to be read if the individual is in custody and undergoing interrogation. In this case, Billy was not in custody and the questions asked were basic, so Miranda Rights were not required. Therefore, the video tape can be used as evidence at trial.

Question 6

Billy is in an interrogation room at a police station. He was brought there after being arrested on suspicion of DUI. He was not read his Miranda rights on the side of the road when he was taken into custody and was not read his Miranda rights upon arriving at the station either. The detective who enters the interrogation room is unaware of this information and begins questioning Billy about his whereabouts that evening. Billy mentions that he was at a bar called "The Floating Walrus." This piques the detectives interest, because a woman last seen at that bar has been reported missing. When the detective mentions her name, Billy breaks down crying and asks for forgiveness. Billy then says her body is in a wooded area about 250 feet behind the bar. The detective leaves the station, heads to that area, and finds the woman's body; she is dead from a gunshot wound. A gun registered to Billy is lying next to her.
-Based on the Supreme Court's decision in _____________, if other officers had already made plans to send a search party into the woods first thing in the morning, then police might be able to invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine in order to use the evidence found on and around the body at trial.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court case that established the inevitable discovery doctrine is Nix v. Williams. This doctrine allows for evidence to be used at trial if it would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means, even if it was initially obtained through unlawful means (such as Billy's confession without being read his Miranda rights). In this case, if other officers had already made plans to search the wooded area where the woman's body was found, the police may be able to argue that they would have inevitably discovered Billy's gun and the evidence around the body, even if Billy had not confessed to its location.

Question 7

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
-The blood evidence used at trial:

Accepted Answer

The blood evidence is likely to be considered admissible physical evidence because the police had probable cause to believe Billy was driving under the influence, and taking a blood sample is a common and permissible means of collecting evidence in DUI cases. Billy's refusal to consent to a breathalyzer does not automatically exclude the blood evidence, and his drunken state may have affected his ability to provide valid consent. The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply to physical evidence, only to compelled testimony, so the blood evidence does not violate this right. A warrant is not required for a blood test if there is probable cause and exigent circumstances (such as the dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream).

Question 8

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
-Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel v. Nevada, the request for an ID is:

Accepted Answer

The request for an ID is permissible if there was reasonable suspicion, as established by the Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Nevada. In this case, the off-duty detective observed suspicious behavior and checked for identification in order to investigate further. However, the officer would have needed probable cause to perform the pat-down search and search the suspect's coat pocket.

Question 9

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
-The officer's initial pat down needs to be supported by:

Accepted Answer

The officer's initial pat down is based on reasonable suspicion, which allows him to briefly detain and pat down someone if he has a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous. The officer's observation of the suspect's behavior, including his suspicious activity outside a bank and his furtive movements, give rise to such a suspicion. The subsequent discovery of the gun and cocaine provide further support for the initial detention and pat down.

Question 10

On a hot summer day, an off-duty detective is having lunch in an Italian bistro in Las Vegas. He looks out the window of the restaurant and sees a man in long sleeved clothing walking back and forth in front of a bank across the street. The man appears to be constantly peering inside the bank's window and is checking his watch regularly. The officer decides to investigate. He walks across the street and confronts the man, asking him to explain what he is doing and to show ID. Unsatisfied with the man's evasive answers, the officer asks the suspect to raise his arms to the side and pats the man down. After feeling what he thinks is a gun, the officer reaches in the man's coat pocket. There, the officer finds a 9mm handgun and a small bag of cocaine.
-Based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Terry v. Ohio and Minnesota v. Dickerson, which piece or pieces of evidence do you think will be admissible at trial?

Accepted Answer

The officer was justified in conducting a pat-down search for weapons based on the suspect's suspicious behavior and the possibility of danger in the situation. During that search, the officer felt what he believed was a gun, which gave him probable cause to reach into the suspect's pocket and find the gun and the bag of cocaine. Both the gun and the cocaine will likely be admissible as evidence at trial.

Question 11

Critical Thinking:
Billy is driving home from a bar on a Friday night when he comes upon a DUI checkpoint. At the checkpoint, an officer smells alcohol on Billy's breath and asks him to step out of the car. Billy stumbles out of the car and slurs his words when asked a few basic questions about who he is and where he is going. Billy refuses to consent to a breathalyzer, but the officer does have a video camera record Billy as he is stumbling and slurring his words. Billy is arrested on suspicion of DUI and taken to the police station. At the station, a sample of Billy's blood is taken. Although Billy does not consent to this, he is too drunk to put up much resistance. At his trial, officers play a video of Billy slurring his words and also introduce the blood evidence. He is convicted of DUI.
-Had this checkpoint a "drug checkpoint" instead of a DUI checkpoint, then which statement would be true?

Accepted Answer

Case law in the United States, as established by the Supreme Court in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000), holds that checkpoints for the purpose of detecting evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, such as drug checkpoints, violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, a DUI conviction resulting from a stop at a "drug checkpoint" would likely be overturned on the basis that the checkpoint itself was unconstitutional.

Quiz 4: Arrest, Interrogation, and Identification Procedures

Completion: -_____________ involves police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual.