Flashcards in Chapter 17-Confessions and admissions:Cases weakening Miranda Deck (25):
leading cases are
New York v Quarles, Duckworth v Eagan, Oregan v Elstad. More recent United STates v Patane
Admission into evidence of a a suspects refusal to submit to blood-alcohol test does not violate suspects privilege against self-incrimination
South Dakota v Neville,1983
Neville refused to take test. South Dakota law permits a person suspected of DWI to submit to blood-alcohol test and authorizes revocation of DL if refused. Refusal is to be used against driver as evidence of guilt during trial. This evidence is constitutional and does not violate his 5th Amend
Concern for public safety represents an exception to Miranda rule
New York v Quarles, 1984
Woman reported a rape and advised suspect went into a store. officers located suspect matching description. officer frisked suspect and found a holster but no gun. after under arrest, officer asked Quarles where gun was, which Quarles gave location. Admissible due to public safety exception
public safety exception to Miranda rule
public safety prevailes. Gun in the supermarket posed more than one danger to public. Questions designed solely to elicit testimony evidence from suspect is not advisable.
A confession made after Miranda warning and waiver is admissible even if police obtained an earlier voluntary but unwarned admission from suspect
Oregon v Elstad, 1985
Elstad was arrested at home on burglary warrant. After officer told Elstad that he was implicated in a burglary, Elstad responded "Yes, I was there. Elstad taken to station where he was Mirandized and gave full confession. Making incriminating statements "inculpatory statement", before Miranda does not exlude further confessions after Miranda given. The initial inculpatory statement was inadmissible because it was a response to police questioning, because it was before Miranda given. Such an act by police was not, in itself illegal.
However, the rule still holds that if police commit an illegal act, any evidence obtained as a result of that illegal act is inadmissilbe as
fruit of the poisonous tree
statements made when mental state of defendant interfered with his "rational intellect" and "free will" are not automatically excludable. Their admissibility is governed by state rules of evidence
Colorado v Connelly, 1986
Connelly approached a Denver officer and confessed to murdering someone in Denver in 1982. Miranda given, Connelly waivde his rights.
even for statements made when suspect was not fully rational is valid. Court held that such evidence is not automatically excluded; its admissibility instead depends upon state rules.
a waiver is considered voluntary under the Constitution and its admissibility is governed by state law as long as
police behavior is legal
Waiver of Miranda is valid even if suspect believes that the interrogation will focus on minor crimes but the police later shift the questioning to cover a different and more serious crime
Colorado v Spring, 1987
Spring and companion shot and killed a man during hunting trip in Denver. Spring was questioned about firearms transactions after being arrested and Mirandized. Later questioned by Colorado officials regarding murder. Suspect does not have to be informed of all crimes of which he is being questioned before the can be a valid waiver.
Confession in Spring is valid because there was no
deception or misrepresentation by the police in obtaining the confession
suspects oral confession is admissible even if suspects tells the police that he will not make a written statement without a lawyer present
Connecticut v Barrett, 1987
Barrett arrested on sexual assault. Miranda given and would talk to police but not give a writtren statement without a lawyer present. Oral statement is valid if made voluntarily
refusal to have a statement in writing does not make a confession inadmissible, as long as the police can establish that the Miranda warning were given and
waiver was intelligent and voluntary
a valid waiver after Miranda constitutes a waiver of right to counsel as well as the privilege against self-incrimination
Patterson v Illinois, 1988
police informed Patterson, who was in police custody, he was indicted for murder. patterson willingness to discuss the crime and was Mirandized everytime he was interrogated.
Many police officers believe that Miranda v Arizona is a right to counsel case. It is not. Instead, it is a right
agianst self-incrimination, meaning that the main reason Miranda warnings must given by police is because these warnings protect a suspect's rights against self-incrimination.
Miranda warning need not be given in the exact form as worded in Miranda v Arizona; what is needed is that they simply convey to the suspect his rights.
Duckworth v Eagan, 1989
Duckworth questioned by Indiana police in connection with a stabbing. Duckworth was already in custody and made incriminating statements after signing a waiver form provided. Form was not exactly worded like Miranda v Arizona
Police may validly ask routine questions of persons suspected of DWI and videotape their responses without giving them the Miranda warning
Pennsylvania v Muniz, 1990
This case aids police in obtaining evidence for prosecution in drunk driving cases. Questions and videotaping of proceedings is constitutional
5th Amend, prohibition against self-incrimination prohibits only testimonial or communicative self-incrimination and does not prohibt
asking of routine questions, the answeres to which were slurred and videotaping of the proceedings were self-incriminatory, but such incrimination was physical.
In sum, evidence obtained was physical instead of mental in nature, the evidence was admissible in court, even without the Miranda
An accused's request for a lawyer at a bail hearing after being charged with an offense does not constitute an invocation of the 5th Amend right to counsel under Miranda for other offenses for which the accused has not yet been charged.
McNeil v Wisconsin, 1991
McNeil arrested in Nebraska on robbery warrant out of Milwaukee Wisconsin. At bail hearing, he asked for public defender for that offense. While in detention, he was asked by police about a murder and crimes in a nearby town. Mcneil mirandized and waived his rights and confessed to murder
In McNeil, the request for counsel at a bail hearing is different from request for counsel when being interrogated by the police for a crime
Court held that invocation of Miranda during a bail hearing did not apply to other cases with which he had not yet been charged, particularly because he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights when interrogated by police concerning those cases. "requesting the assistance of attorney at a bail hearing does not satify the minimum requirement of some statements that can reasonably be construed as an expression of a desire for counsel in dealing with custodial interrogation by police.
after knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights, law enforcement may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney.
Davis v United States, 1994
Davis and Shackleford were playing pool. Shackleford lost a game and refused to pay. Shackleford was beaten to death with a pool cue.
During interrogaiton , Davis stated "maybe i should talk with a lawyer". officers asked Davis if he was asking for a lawyer and Davis replied no. Davis gave incriminating statements. shortly thereafter, DAvis asked for a lawyer and interview was stopped. Statements admissible. Suspect must make reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of circumstances would have understood that he is invoking the right to counsel
Invocation of the Miranda
right to counsel requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonabley be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney
Failure to give a suspect the Miranda warning does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect 's unwarned but voluntary statements
United States v Patane, 2004
Patane arrested for violating the restraining order. Officer attempted to Mirandize Patane, who interrupted the officer and advised he knew his rights. officer asked about a firearm which Patane gave location and consent to seize.
Court based its ruling on Patane on three foundations
1. relationship between the self-incrimination clause and physical evidence
2. requirement to provide Miranda warning for physical evidence
3. realationship to the exclusionary rule