Week 1: What constitutes an arrest Flashcards
What constitutes an arrest?
If you feel that you can’t leave within a maximum amount of time (e.g. 20 minutes), that would be an arrest
Arrest doesn’t mean you’re in handcuffs are physically restrained
e.g. questioning a witness after a burglary is NOT an arrest, a driver stopped for a traffic violation is detained NOT arrested, but if you were told “don’t move” - this constitutes an arrest
Police Custody
when you’ve submitted to the authority of the police
Oregon v. Mathiason context
Mathiason believed to have committed a burglary. An officer investigating a burglary leaves his card at Mathiason’s apartment. He also leaves a note asking him to call because “I’d like to discuss something with you.” Mathiason agrees to meeting. When Mathiason arrives at the station, the officer tells him he isn’t under arrest but that it would be best to be truthful because his truthfulness would be considered by a judge. Officer falsely says that believes Mathiason was involved because his fingerprints are at the scene of the crime. Although Mathiason was told he wasn’t under arrest, he didn’t leave and confessed within five minutes. He’s later charged and convicted.
What issue does the Oregon v. Mathiason case address?
Was Mathiason under arrest when he met with the officer?
What did the Supreme Court rule in the Oregon v. Mathiason case and why?
Supreme Court decided that the context in which the questioning took place (no handcuffs, unlocked door) was important, so they decided that he was not under arrest
Additionally, Mathiason left the station after 30 minutes and was only charged later.
What appeal did Mathiason make?
Mathiason thought he was under arrest at the time and his Miranda rights were not read, thought this was a violation but was ruled that he was not under arrest
US v. Patterson context
FBI agents identify Patterson as a suspect in a bank robbery. Two agents— dressed in casual clothes and each armed with
a handgun—approach him in his driveway. They identify themselves as FBI agents, ask him to show his hands, and explain that “his name came up in an investigation.” When the agents request an interview, Patterson voluntarily consents and accompanies the agents to a downtown FBI office. During a two-hour interview inside a conference room that is unlocked from the inside, he confesses to his involvement in the robbery.
Totality of the circumstances
when all relevant factors are considered in a decision, rather than a strict bright-line rule
What might you consider under the totality of the circumstances for the US v. Patterson case
-the language used to summon the individual
-the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his guilt
-the physical surroundings of the interrogtion
-the detention’s duration
-the degree of pressure applied to detain
According to the court’s decision, was Patterson under arrest?
No because he was never physically restrained as well as other factors in the totality of the circumstances
e.g. police asked multiple times if he was willing to talk, no force, conference room is unlocked
Can an involuntary confession be admitted as evidence
No, an involuntary confession cannot be admitted as evidence
*Why can’t an involuntary confession be admitted as evidence?
Because the Fifth Amendement says that “no person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
A confession thats been obtained under circumstances where the level of physical or psychological coercion is enough to eclipse your free will violates this part of the Fifth Amendment
This is also because it encourages the government to conduct a thorough inestigation instead of forcing a confession (known as an accusatorial justice system)
