Two people rob a convenience store. Steve, steals the stuff while Rose, watches the store clerk. Rose shoots him and flees the scene and drops the gun. Steve picks up the gun, and drives away, but ends up running over and killing the wounded clerk. The police set up a roadblock to stop Steve. As he stops an officer asks him about his whereabouts, but he is silent. He is then forced to get out of his car. The officer then notices a bulge in his jacket and reaches in to pull out a gun. Steve is arrested. His car is towed and the police find items taken from the robbery. The officer shows this to Steve and he blurts out that Rose was the mastermind. When the officer interrogates Rose, she requests a lawyer, but before she gets one – she admits her part in the robbery. So the question is what will be suppressed in ROSE’S trial: the gun that the officer took from Steve, the contents from the impounded car, Steve’s statement, or her own admission.
2007-05-04 06:51:41 · 13 answers · asked by Jwong 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
No evidence is suppressed! The statement is admissable in court.
The stop is reasonable based upon the events occuring at the store. Having the occupants ordered out of the vehicle is legal!
The statement made by Steve is referred to as a "spontaneous utterance" and admissable in court without Miranda Warning!
The search of the vehicle is legal based upon "exigent circumstances" and the impoundment where the officer may inventory without a warrant!
Your information about Rose is insufficient to say. If she was advised of her rights prior to the interrogation and requested an attorney but the questioning continued...her statement can be supressed. If she was advised of her rights and declined an attorney, made the statement THEN made a request for her attorney, the statement is admissable!
Best wishes!
2007-05-04 07:01:48 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nothing would be suppressed. The stop was legal. Steve was caught in a roadblock because they obliviously had information of about the car or driver. Either one matches the description, he refuses to talk. The officers have a legal right to tell you to exit a vehicle (upheld by the supreme court). If the bulge in the jacket looks like a gun, the officers have a legal right to search.
If Rose requests a lawyer, thats fine. The officers can't questions here any more. But if she admits a part in the robbery without any prompting from the officers, it's a legal statement and can be suppressed.
Unless I am missing some details, it is all legal and nothing should be suppressed
2007-05-04 06:57:20 · answer #2 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All of the evidence is admissible. The roadblock was legal, as was having Steve get out of the vehicle. Spotting a bulge in the pocket of a potential robbery suspect makes the personal search of Steve legal. It's called an immediate pat-down for weapons, which is always legal due to officer safety issues. Finding an illegal gun on Steve makes the search of the car perfectly legal. Anything Rose says before she asks for a lawyer is most likely admissible. Some judges will throw it out, it is judgment call. Once Rose asks for a lawyer, the questioning is supposed to cease, but if she volunteers any information before the lawyer arrives, it is admissible.
2007-05-04 07:13:11 · answer #3 · answered by Paul Q 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With the information you provided Rose's statement could be suppressed. The interrogation of Rose has to end immediately after she requests a lawyer. Even asking her name would be a bad idea. Rose's statement could be thrown out, but further information is really needed. Just because you request a lawyer doesnt mean that you can say "I want a lawyer, oh yeah, and I did it"
The gun is ok....Terry v. OH
The contents of the impounded car. Inventory search is an exception to the 4th amendment.
Steve's statement would be a spontaneous statement not given under interrogation and he hadnt invoked his miranda rights at that time.
2007-05-04 07:11:22 · answer #4 · answered by zebj25 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This reads like a bad Criminal Procedure (Pre-Trial) course final exam question in law school. Every point can be discussed, and is possible that it could be supressed - of course, if the State's Attorney is alive and paying attention it probably won't happen, but it could.
Part of it could depend on what exactly she was charged with. If she's charged with murder, perhaps the gun isn't relevant because the gun did not kill the clerk, Steve running him over killed him. If she's charged with conspiracy, everything might be relevant and admissible. If she's charged with attempted murder, everything might be admissible. If charged with robbery, her admission might be supressed, but we probably would need more facts to make that decision i.e. was it a voluntary admission after questioning stopped.
This is why the attorneys get paid the big bucks - to take something and try and make it murky.
2007-05-04 11:36:35 · answer #5 · answered by David B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The contents from the impounded car. The gun is admissible because it was in plain view (the gun-like bulge in the jacket is good enough). Steve's statement and Rose's were given freely and are both admissible. In the abscence of a warrant, a general search of the car was not legal.
2007-05-04 06:59:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Your boyfriend and father are snobs. Being a vet is neither low classification nor disgusting. It takes particularly some practise. quite, it is plenty like being a doctor, it is in basic terms for animals instead of persons. In some respects, it is greater difficult. human beings can inform you approximately their indicators. Animals can't. whether, the quantity of pay a activity gets has no longer something to do with being intense classification. Plumbers and rubbish adult adult males make particularly some money. if your boyfriend needs to offload you because of the fact of your occupation selection, then good riddance to him. You deserve a supportive better half, no longer guy or woman who belittles you.
2017-01-09 11:47:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you--her own admission. Having watched Law and Order for several years, lol, once a suspect requests a lawyer she can't say anything that is admissible in the trial. She didn't have the advice of the lawyer she requested to tell her to shut up. Yes, she may have been read her rights and said she understood them, but once she requests a lawyer, you can't use any of what she says before she speaks with him or her.
Well, maybe she wasn't questioned but admitted it of her own volition, but her lawyer would be foolish not to try to get her statement suppressed. It would be up to the judge to make the decision and many err on the side of caution in this sort of thing--or so the writers on Law and Order make you believe.
2007-05-04 06:58:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think youre wrong. She wasnt coerced into the statement, she chose to give the statement before the lawyer arrived.
Not sure what the answer is though-I would say Steve's stmt since he had no lawyer and had not been arrested yet, so his rights had not been read.
2007-05-04 07:10:37 · answer #9 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
At what point did they read them their rights? Steve's assertion that Rose was the mastermind will be suppressed because there is no indication that he was aware that he had the right to remain silent.
2007-05-04 07:22:09 · answer #10 · answered by Babs 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋