Custodial Interrogation, Case Study Example

Introduction

Custodial interrogation is a distinct process that involves the need of the authorities to question the suspects or accused individuals within a confined environment. Considerably, it could be understood that during such procedure taken into account, there are policies and rules to be followed especially on the part of the authorities. People who are accused are considered not yet guilty until the investigation or evidences have proven them to be so. Hence, it is important to note that during interrogation sessions, the accused individuals ought to be treated with respect as is with an ordinary civilian who has the rights especially in relation to their individual freedom of whether or not they should answer a particular question being presented to them.

In the discussion that follows, a specific case between Martin, an accused drug dealer, and officer Quickdraw along with partner officer Justice before and during the interrogation session is to be presented. Response to particular questions shall provide a clearer indication on how the rules and principles of custodial interrogation could be applied in the situation shall be shown proper attention to.

Particular Concerns

1. How would you rule on when Martin makes the statement, “You’re having a bad day . . . man, I can’t believe they found my strap”? Is this statement admissible, or should it be suppressed? Why or why not? Are there any other statements that Martin makes that are similar to this statement in terms of its admissibility?

Yes, this statement is admissible. Relatively, even though she was not read nor presented with her Miranda Rights yet, she voluntarily provided the information when the justice asked her. There were no enforced aspects in relation to how the response was received from her. It was obviously her frustration that made it possible for her to blurt out the said information. The vulnerability of the accused made her confess to a data that could be used in court to implicate her regarding the charges that she is being pressed with.

2. What about the statement made to Officer Justice, “In my bedroom!” Is this statement admissible at trial by the prosecution? Why or why not

Same with the case of the first statement, this information was also given willingly by the accused. Although she was not in the interrogation room yet, nor was she being interrogated already, the questions presented by the policemen were considered valid. Some of the questions could be understood as unintentional; nevertheless, they are able to bring about specific conditions by which information necessary for the proceedings of the investigation to be imposed as reliable. Under the rules and principles applied according to the law on custodial interrogation, so long as a person responds to a question given to someone in authority, the information could be considered valid, especially if the court is able to provide strong evidence that such information is not tinted nor was it forced out from the respondent.

3. When Quickdraw overviews Martin’s rights, what constitutional rights should he go over with her?

Although it was noted along the case’s specifics that Martin already know her rights as a civil individual, it was still protocol on the part of Quickdraw to mention about her Miranda Rights therefore informing her about the rights she has as an individual and as an accused for a particular crime [she may or may have not committed, a matter that would still be decided upon]. Considering her situation, the Miranda Right’s warming on the distinctive assumption on which information she provides could actually be used as valid data for her hearing in relation to the case she is involved with.

The last section of the clause completing the Miranda Right’s is that of the statement that imposes on the distinctive implication on how a person’s statement could incriminate her individual being on the case that is being resolved. Relatively, she could provide responses even without her attorney. In consideration with the rules of custodial interrogation, such information could be used to incriminate her into the case [hence, she is given the right to remain silent as she desires if she thinks that the question has an incriminating impact on how her position in the case is viewed by the court].

4. When Martin interacts with Quickdraw in the interview room, what statements are admissible and why? Does Martin invoke any rights at any point, and does this impact the admissibility of any statements made by her?

The question where did you get the smack from is an admissible question as it was already mentioned after the presentation of the accused individual’s Miranda Rights. Since she already asked for an attorney for the presentation of information relating to this case, she might actually choose not to mention anything about the situation nor answer the question presented to her by the officer. Relatively though, since Quickdraw presented a deal which Matin took into account, her response on the matter could be considered admissible even without the presence of an attorney which she has requested for in the first place.

Conclusion

Basing from the distinct questions responded to in this presentation, it could be realized that the protocol of mentioning the Miranda Rights or the Miranda Warning to an accused individual before the actual custodial interrogation process is an important part of the procedure taken into account. It accounts for the admissibility of the different information that the individual being accused chooses to disclose during the interview thus pertaining to whether or not such data would be able to incriminate him or her into the case being resolved.

References:

Adams and Blinka, Pretrial Motions in Criminal Prosecutions, 2d ed. (Lexis)331 n. 203 citing United States v. Daughenbaugh, 49 F.3d 171, 173 (5th Cir. 1995).

Bandow, Doug (2012). “From Fighting the Drug War to Protecting the Right to Use Drugs – Recognizing a Forgotten Liberty”. Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom. Chapter 10. Fraser Institute. pp. 253–280.

Stigall, Dan E. (2009). Counterterrorism and the Comparative Law of Investigative Detention. Amherst, NY: Cambria.

Szasz, Thomas (1992). Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market. Praeger.