Is this a violation of Miranda.?

LawGunGuy

Hmmm, it sounds like a law school question!

Although most people here are already correct, the reason that it is not a miranda violation is similar to the reason why the police can lie to you about evidence in order to get you to implicate yourself in a crime.

The reason it's not a miranda violation is because they did not direct any questions toward him. Another poster was correct by saying it was a "spontaneous utterance" since telling the police where the gun was followed his miranda warning and him telling the police can be considered a waiver of his rights.

Additionally, the conduct of the police can be seen as non interogatory, non threatening and without compulsion in eliciting Ernest's comments.

I know my law school professor said that it was "borderline" since the police were engaging in a conversation that was meant to elicit a response from Ernest, but in the REAL WORLD, that line of thinking is BS. I've done MANY MANY hearings on the admissibility of the defendant's statements and all of them were not even close to borderline according to the judge.

123nickname123

no violation. ernest volunteered to speak after his rights were read and after he asked for an attorney.

In legal trouble

jjbetz@swbell.net

I would say no, Ernest was not asked any questions and volunteered the information.

mebe1042

Yes.

Ernest is in custody and has invoked his right to remain silent. The the conversation between the two Officers can be construed as being intentionally designed(even though it probably wasn't) to elicit a confession from Ernest.

Mr. G.

Ernest was not interrogated. He was not forced to talk. He volunteered the information. No violation of the Miranda.

Judge Dredd

No because it falls under the Public Safety Exception since the gun could be found be someone else.

Had it been something that wasn't dangerous like a weapon it could have been a violation since their conversation was intended to illicit an incriminating response which does fall under the definition of interrogation for Miranda purposes.

If this question is still open I will find the case laws on Monday. Unfortunately I leave it at work for lunch time reading.

pop_roxy_princess920

not at all. the purpose of the miranda right is that the arrested KNOW that they have the right to silence and to an attorney. meaning that a forced confession can't be taken (this was created because a person was freed because he didn't know that he had the right to the attorney, and now they do it in order to prevent events like this).

but because he spoke on his own accord and the officers in no way were interrogating him it was not a violation because the miranda rights he could have chosen to stay silent only he CHOSE to tell the police.

wayne g

Even if it was a violation of his Miranda rights it was good
police work. Anyone who would rather rob or steal what
someone else worked for than, to get off there sorry a** and
get a job should have no rights! But no, he volunteered the
information.

MCC

I am amazed that the people who answered this question most accurately are getting all the thumbs down.
The law school case is usually referred to as "proper christian burial" in law school slang.
Two cops, after Mirandizing a suspect (who elects to remain silent) start talking to one another, not the suspect, about how it would be great to recover the body so the victim may have a "proper christian burial." (yeah, I know it is arcane.) The suspect then utters some words of guilt and tells them where the body is.
It is an interesting question in theory, but in reality, it is a criminal suspect's words against a cop's.
You do the math.

Barbara

no. they were talking to each other. they weren't pressing or asking him anything. he is the one that spoke up. it is a little guilt trippy but it doesn't break his Miranda rights.

Al Mac Wheel

I believe the police have obligation to give suspects various warnings, to remind them of the right to call a lawyer, to have one present during questioning.

The police also have the right to use all sorts of trickery to try to elicit information from suspects.

If Ernest had been clever, he might have told the officers that he might be able to help them prevent this happening, provided he speak with his lawyer first, could you please expedite that. The lawyer could then have done some trickery of his own, such as getting some plea bargain reduction of sentence in return for helping the police find the gun.

chill out

The reason this sounds suspiciously familiar is because it is similar to a famous case used and studied in most criminal law classes. Brewer v. Williams. In this case the police have a suspect in custody that has been advised by his attorney not to make any statements to police and the police are aware as they have spoken to the attorney. During the ride to the police station, one detective attempts to elicit statements by mentioning that it is snowing and the little girls body may not be found. He tells the defendant knowing that he is deeply religious, that the parents should be entitled to a Christian burial for their daughter. He eventually tells the police where the body is. The Appeals Court affirmed the Federal District Court that the statement violated the defendants 6th &14th amendment rights (right to counsel). To answer your question, yes, this is a violation of Miranda.

There is more to this case such as the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.

Lisbeth

I would guesstimate that no, it is not a violation of his Miranda rights (and I'm sorry, I keep thinking of that goofy movie "Ernest saves Christmas" lol). BUT, I also would guess the attorney for Ernest would find another way to get that gun thrown out of court, other than using a Miranda violation.

I'd say it's not a violation for the same reasons others gave, that he volunteered the information, and that no one did question him.

crazy_devil_dan

I guess that it all depends on how good of an attorney Ernest can afford.
A real good expensive attorney vs a fresh out of law school prosecutor then it is a violation of Miranda
a public defender then no it is not

marionso14

it is not a violation for several reasons.

1. the other officers did not question him about it. they were talkin to each other

2. it is still not a violation even if they do question him without an attorney unless they force him to answer.

3. the rights were read to him, it was a voluntary statement made at his own free will

Smartassus

I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. To me Ernest's statements would fall under "spontaneous utterances." There are prohibitions against the police questioning Ernest in this case but to my knowledge there is no prohibition against making statements to each other. Of course Ernest's attorney will fight the evidence in court and try to get it dismissed but there would be no charges of misconduct.

Bobby D

No, it isn't. The court won't even entertain that as a technicality in this case, because the welfare of citizens was at risk.
Hope Ernie gets a nice long sentence.

Kristan H

This is a tricky situation. If it can be proven that the officers did this in an attempt to make Ernest show them where the gun was, then yes it would be a violation of Miranda. However, if Ernest volunteered this information on his own, then it would not fall under MIranda but fall under the inevitable discovery clause. I can't remember the case it came from at this time but I know the US Supreme Court has ruled on a very similar case before.

His Divine Shadow

Not if Ernest waived his right to an attorney. It is something that the police he is riding with should ask him before he gives further information. Otherwise, the confession could be challenged, although I am unsure how much weight that challenge would have if the suspect had already had his rights red to him.

chasen54

yes.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: