evidence supression?

Question

If a person was taken into custody and said incriminateing things before they were mirandized while sitting in a squad car (which was more than likely being recorded) can any of that get thrown out. If so what? can the videotape be tossed or partially thrown out?

Also....what if the cop is "fabricateing" the police report and the descrepencies will show on police tape....can it then be thrown out too?

as far as the report goes in response to the 2nd answer....The cop was giveing his version of a routine traffick stop which resulted in arrests. But as far as the incriminateing comments.....what if the officer said a statement to you, and you responded, but before you were mirandized

and in his police repert he switched the events around as well as a few other things...(which will show on the tape)

Answer 1

If the officers were asking them questions about the crime, and in response the person gave incriminating responses, it can be thrown out.

The Miranda Warning only comes into effect when the police are conducting a custodial interrogation. Meaning that only questions about the alleged crime being asked after the person has been arrested. So if the officer is not questioning the person yet, then they do not have to read the Miranda Warning yet.

So, if the officer was asking name, address, date of birth, etc., and the person just said these incriminating things, then no, it's not gonna get thrown out. And if the officer wasn't even talking to the person, and they just blurted out all these incriminating statements, then the person is just screwed. Things like that are called "spontaneous utterance" and are completely admissable in court.

As for the officer fabricating things on the report, you'd have to be more specific. But generally, no. The report is not usually the officer's account of what happened. The report is the complaining citizen's account of what happened. So, if the person who called and complained said that Billy Bob pulled out a gun and threatened him with it, then that's what will be on the report. The police report is just a recording of the complainant's account of what took place.

EDIT:
Okay, if the report is the officer's account of a traffic stop, and there are several things on the report that can be proven to be incorrect and deliberate, then there is a good chance the report can be thrown out. How much effect that has on the case is something the judge will have to determine.

And the only way that the incriminating statements will be thrown out is if the statement the officer made was a question about the crime or a statement designed specifically to get the person to comment about the crime. Otherwise, the statements are in.

Having said all this, if the officer had probable cause for the traffic stop, probable cause for the arrest, and enough evidence to convince a judge or jury (depending on the seriousness of the charge), then the prosecutor may not even need the police report or the defendan'ts incriminating statements. As long as the officer is there to testify, and is convincing and has any other evidence, then the case will still be pretty strong. Of course, if the report and the defendant's statements both get thrown out because of the officer's negligence or deliberate improper actions, then his credibility will be shot when he's testifying.

Answer 2

RJ is correct.

As far as the report, there are specific rules for what gets admitted and what does not. Just because evidence may conflict, that is not by itself grounds to suppress it. The jury will determine which evidence it believes more, if there is a conflict.

Answer 3

Any thing before they've been read their rights can be thrown out. I'm cirtainly not an expert, but i think that's right.