POLS 4720 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Exigent Circumstance
5 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
. Supersad
-Supersad gave consent to the search of his bag and marijuana was found. Officer Smith
arrested him and he was in custody (#2) and was questioned. Supersad made
incriminating statements without being read his Miranda rights and there was a 20
minute break. When officer came back, S was read his rights. He waived his rights with a
waiver form and S repeated. Under Oregon v Elstad, a post warning confession is
inadmissible when a two step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to
undermine the Miranda warning. Like Missouri v Seibert, because in this case the
questioning took place in the same place with the same officer who did not advise that
prior statement could be used against, these circumstances challenge the efficacy of the
Miradna warnings to the point that a reasonale person in the suspet’s shoes ould
have understood them to convey a message that they retained a choice about
continuing to talk. A strategic two step interrogation was used, therefore intentionally
leaving out Miranda. The court should consider the completeness and details of the
answers in the prewarning interrogation, overlapping content, timing and setting,
continuity, and degree to which the second interrogation was treated as a continuation
of the first. Because Supersad repeated his statements from earlier, there is a violation
of Seibert and the statements cannot be admissible.
4. Joe Bull & Sue Lamb
-Police had authority to stop the individuals under Terry v Ohio. The police had
reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop which was the forecasted theft. The
officers were able to arrest the students for a crime because they have probable cause
that a crime had been committed because the food employee service said there was a
theft. The officer is also allowed to search the bookbag under Search Incident to Arrest.
Under Chimel v California, the search incident to legal arrest is justified by the need to
prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence and from obtaining a weapon. The
officer was allowed to search the grabbable area of the students which was their
backpack in this situation.
-When Sue agreed to come down to the police station and was explained that she was
not in custody, Miranda does not apply. Because she is not in custody, any statement
she makes is voluntary and is admissible.
5. Baker
-The officer was allowed to follow Baker into his apartment without a warrant under
exigent circumstances. Under Minnesota v Olson, exigency exists when there is
probable cause to believe that there is hot pursuit, imminent destruction of evidence,
the need to prevent escape, and if there is danger to the police or others. Because Baker
ran away (hot pursuit), the officer was allowed to enter his apartment and arrest him. In
a search incident to arrest (#4), the officer was allowed to search the book-bag.
- In this case, the management of the office is using the search to safeguard the health
and safety of the tenants. Because it is emergent to make sure there is no danger or
violation, there is no need for the tenants to give notice to the owners.
- Using the balancing test from T.L.O, the reasonableness of any special needs search
involves a two fold inquiry. Are there reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Supersad gave consent to the search of his bag and marijuana was found. Officer smith arrested him and he was in custody (#2) and was questioned. Supersad made incriminating statements without being read his miranda rights and there was a 20 minute break. When officer came back, s was read his rights. He waived his rights with a waiver form and s repeated. Under oregon v elstad, a post warning confession is inadmissible when a two step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the miranda warning. Like missouri v seibert, because in this case the questioning took place in the same place with the same officer who did not advise that prior statement could be used against, these circumstances challenge the efficacy of the. Miradna warnings to the point that a reasona(cid:271)le person in the suspe(cid:272)t s shoes (cid:272)ould have understood them to convey a message that they retained a choice about continuing to talk.
