CrimPro question, HELP

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
vidayvino

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:36 am

CrimPro question, HELP

Postby vidayvino » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:16 am

Applicant law: US constitution and federal rule of criminal procedure

Q: A police waved and signaled a car to pull over. The driver followed the police's instruction to pull over and rolled down the car window to see what the police was up to. The police then asked the driver a few questions and the driver answered. Subsequently, the police arrested the driver and read him the Miranda rights. Are the driver's answers admissible?


I have no idea whether the element of "in the police custody" applies in this situation. Or, does the due process clause come into play in this scenario as well? can anyone kindly help?
Thanks in advance.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby cavalier1138 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:43 am

What is this question for? And there isn't even close to enough detail to answer.

User avatar
SilvermanBarPrep

Bronze
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby SilvermanBarPrep » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:24 pm

I would say that no, the driver's constitutional rights were likely not violated. The stop is very similar to a "Terry stop" when the police stop you because they have reasonable suspicion to do so. They are not required to read you miranda rights in that situation and I would analogize that to this. And then prior to actually holding the suspect in custody, Miranda was read, so it looks to me as if no constitutional rights were violated with the facts as presented and the answers to the questions probably will not be excluded.

Sean (Silverman Bar Exam Tutoring)

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby cavalier1138 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

SilvermanBarPrep wrote:I would say that no, the driver's constitutional rights were likely not violated. The stop is very similar to a "Terry stop" when the police stop you because they have reasonable suspicion to do so. They are not required to read you miranda rights in that situation and I would analogize that to this. And then prior to actually holding the suspect in custody, Miranda was read, so it looks to me as if no constitutional rights were violated with the facts as presented and the answers to the questions probably will not be excluded.

Sean (Silverman Bar Exam Tutoring)


Where did you see reasonable suspicion in the OP's hypo? I think you're right in your analysis, but the OP simply stated that the police flagged the vehicle down. Without some kind of articulable suspicion, I don't see how we get to a Terry stop, and I don't know how we can then determine whether the driver would have felt free to leave, what preceded the decision to mirandize, etc. There just isn't enough information in the hypo.

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby encore1101 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:08 pm

The similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda.

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984)

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby encore1101 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:12 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
SilvermanBarPrep wrote:I would say that no, the driver's constitutional rights were likely not violated. The stop is very similar to a "Terry stop" when the police stop you because they have reasonable suspicion to do so. They are not required to read you miranda rights in that situation and I would analogize that to this. And then prior to actually holding the suspect in custody, Miranda was read, so it looks to me as if no constitutional rights were violated with the facts as presented and the answers to the questions probably will not be excluded.

Sean (Silverman Bar Exam Tutoring)


Where did you see reasonable suspicion in the OP's hypo? I think you're right in your analysis, but the OP simply stated that the police flagged the vehicle down. Without some kind of articulable suspicion, I don't see how we get to a Terry stop, and I don't know how we can then determine whether the driver would have felt free to leave, what preceded the decision to mirandize, etc. There just isn't enough information in the hypo.


I think Sean's point, although not artfully articulated, was that a car stop shares similarities with a Terry stop; not that it is a Terry stop that would require RS. In the case I cited above SCOTUS said:

Two features of an ordinary traffic stop mitigate the danger that a person questioned will be induced “to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely,” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., at 467, 86 S.Ct., at 1624. First, detention of a motorist pursuant to a traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief. The vast majority of roadside detentions last only a few minutes. A motorist's expectations, when he sees a policeman's light flashing behind him, are that he will be obliged to spend a short period of time answering questions and waiting while the officer checks his license and registration, that he may then be given a citation, but that in the end he most likely will be allowed to continue on his way. In this respect, questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation, which frequently is prolonged, and in which the detainee often is aware that questioning will continue until he provides his interrogators the answers they seek. See id., at 451, 86 S.Ct., at 1615.27

Second, circumstances associated with the typical traffic stop are not such that the motorist feels completely at the mercy of the police. To be sure, the aura of authority surrounding an armed, uniformed officer and the knowledge that the officer has some discretion in deciding whether to issue a citation, in combination, exert some pressure on the detainee to respond to questions. But other aspects of the situation substantially offset these forces. Perhaps most importantly, the typical traffic stop is public, at least to some degree. Passersby, on foot or in other cars, witness the interaction of officer and motorist. This exposure to public view both reduces the ability of an unscrupulous policeman to use illegitimate means to elicit self-incriminating statements and diminishes the motorist's fear that, if he does not cooperate, he will be subjected to abuse. The fact that the detained motorist typically is confronted by only one or at most two policemen further mutes his sense of vulnerability. In short, the atmosphere surrounding an ordinary traffic stop is substantially less “police dominated” than that surrounding the kinds of interrogation at issue in Miranda itself, see 384 U.S., at 445, 491–498, 86 S.Ct., at 1612, 1636–1640, and in the subsequent cases in which we have applied Miranda.

In both of these respects, the usual traffic stop is more analogous to a so-called “Terry stop,” see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), than to a formal arrest.

cavalier1138

Gold
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby cavalier1138 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:30 pm

encore1101 wrote:I think Sean's point, although not artfully articulated, was that a car stop shares similarities with a Terry stop; not that it is a Terry stop that would require RS.


Right, but car stops still require something. I forget the on-point case (too lazy to look it up), but police can't go around arbitrarily pulling cars over and questioning the occupants. And the OP's scenario doesn't explain the context for the police "waving" at the car for it to pull over or what the initial questions were. If the stop was unlawful, everything that follows was also unlawful.

PorscheFanatic

Bronze
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby PorscheFanatic » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:49 pm

Again not enough detail.

Without even getting to the RS part, even with RS the answers are inadmissible IF, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave (I.e. in custody). It was definitely an interrogation because police asking questions, but if reasonable person didn't feel free to leave, now it's custodial interrogation and violation of Miranda rights.

If no RS to pull the vehicle over, then inadmissible regardless of above analysis. Probably inadmissible since police weren't stopping vehicles for a purpose closely related to automobiles (e.g. DUI checkpoint), but instead appeared to simply flag down a random vehicle.

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby encore1101 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:56 pm

cavalier1138 wrote:
encore1101 wrote:I think Sean's point, although not artfully articulated, was that a car stop shares similarities with a Terry stop; not that it is a Terry stop that would require RS.


Right, but car stops still require something. I forget the on-point case (too lazy to look it up), but police can't go around arbitrarily pulling cars over and questioning the occupants. And the OP's scenario doesn't explain the context for the police "waving" at the car for it to pull over or what the initial questions were. If the stop was unlawful, everything that follows was also unlawful.



you're right about the police stop/fruit of the poisonous tree stuff. the OP made it sound like a traffic check point, but you're right -- the details are sparse. you're right that the if the stop was bad (under whren v. us, is the case you're thinking about, maybe?), the statement would get tossed out anyway, but for purposes of this question, the legality of the traffic stop is a separate issue from whether he was in police custody.

i limited my response to just the question of whether the driver was in custody because that was what the OP asked.
Last edited by encore1101 on Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
encore1101

Silver
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:13 am

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby encore1101 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:57 pm

PorscheFanatic wrote:Again not enough detail.

Without even getting to the RS part, even with RS the answers are inadmissible IF, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave (I.e. in custody). It was definitely an interrogation because police asking questions, but if reasonable person didn't feel free to leave, now it's custodial interrogation and violation of Miranda rights.

If no RS to pull the vehicle over, then inadmissible regardless of above analysis. Probably inadmissible since police weren't stopping vehicles for a purpose closely related to automobiles (e.g. DUI checkpoint), but instead appeared to simply flag down a random vehicle.


asking questions, by itself, doesn't constitute an interrogation. the questions have to be likely to elicit an incriminating response. see rhode island v. innis

PorscheFanatic

Bronze
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby PorscheFanatic » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:02 pm

encore1101 wrote:
PorscheFanatic wrote:Again not enough detail.

Without even getting to the RS part, even with RS the answers are inadmissible IF, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave (I.e. in custody). It was definitely an interrogation because police asking questions, but if reasonable person didn't feel free to leave, now it's custodial interrogation and violation of Miranda rights.

If no RS to pull the vehicle over, then inadmissible regardless of above analysis. Probably inadmissible since police weren't stopping vehicles for a purpose closely related to automobiles (e.g. DUI checkpoint), but instead appeared to simply flag down a random vehicle.


asking questions, by itself, doesn't constitute an interrogation. the questions have to be likely to elicit an incriminating response. see rhode island v. innis


True. I kind of assumed they were and didn't go back to re-read. Again, goes back to that this doesn't seem to provide us with enough detail to answer.

User avatar
pancakes3

Platinum
Posts: 6619
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby pancakes3 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:54 pm

it is indeed a bad question but if we were to infer the thrust of the question, i agree w encore to the extent that the heart of the issue was whether the pre-miranda questioning qualified as custodial interrogation and to do that, the answerer has to decide whether

a) there was a deprivation of the freedom to leave to satisfy "custodial"
b) the questioning was in a manner that was "interrogation"

these are fact-dependent on the actions of the officer and the hypo is fact-starved

otherwise, every single sentence of the hypo can be dissected into an analysis of its own as to:

- whether it was a lawful stop
- whether the initial questioning was CI
- whether the miranda warning was proper, both formally issued and construed
- whether the arrest was lawful
- where are the answers being admitted into - grand jury? trial? a subsequent warrant?

clshopeful

Bronze
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:15 pm

Re: CrimPro question, HELP

Postby clshopeful » Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:31 am

encore1101 wrote:
PorscheFanatic wrote:Again not enough detail.

Without even getting to the RS part, even with RS the answers are inadmissible IF, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave (I.e. in custody). It was definitely an interrogation because police asking questions, but if reasonable person didn't feel free to leave, now it's custodial interrogation and violation of Miranda rights.

If no RS to pull the vehicle over, then inadmissible regardless of above analysis. Probably inadmissible since police weren't stopping vehicles for a purpose closely related to automobiles (e.g. DUI checkpoint), but instead appeared to simply flag down a random vehicle.


asking questions, by itself, doesn't constitute an interrogation. the questions have to be likely to elicit an incriminating response. see rhode island v. innis


I don't think thats true -- If you are in custody, and police look at you and ask you a question, it is inadmissible unless you were read your rights and waived them (except for basic intake questions like weight/birthdate/etc). The question asked does not need to 'reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response'... I think that test is for when cops are indirectly asking a question to the person in custody, i.e., cops talking back and forth to with each other about how bad it would be if a conspirator got away, and then the one in custody blurts out an answer (and not being read his rights).

Express questioning in custody = need miranda read
Functional equivalent of express questioning while in custody (officers reasonably know that their conduct/speech would elicit an incriminating response) = miranda needs to be read



Return to “Forum for Law School Students?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests