In this case the defendant claims that statements he made during questioning should be suppressed because he was not provided with Miranda warnings prior to questioning. In order for Miranda warnings to be triggered, there must be a custodial interrogation by a person who the subject knows is a LEO. The defendant argued that since […]
The defendant in this case (Potter) sought to have statements suppressed as a result of a Miranda violation when the officers continued questioning him after he invoked the right to counsel. Potter asserted that since he “mentioned an attorney” and asked if he needed one, that he effectively invoked the right to counsel. The Sixth […]
Here is a fundamental rule regarding Miranda Warnings and invocation of one or both of the rights: Once a suspect unambiguously invokes his right to counsel during custodial interrogation, the officer must immediately cease questioning and honor that right. In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant unequivocally and unambiguously invoked counsel during […]
The defendant was identified as a suspect in a drug trafficking operation after months of surveillance including information by confidential informants. As result of this suspicion, they put the defendant under surveillance. The defendant got in his vehicle, drove to a gas station where another individual got in the car and left a few minutes […]
The defendant was prosecuted for various drug offenses as a result of evidence obtained during a traffic stop as well as statements made during the stop. Specifically, the defendant argued that: the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged to the point that it became a de facto arrest for which probable cause was lacking, that there […]
Questioning occupants during Summers Detention was not custody for Miranda purposes. While executing a premises search warrant, police detained the defendant and his wife (who owned the house). The LEOs asked the wife if there were any weapons in the house that could hurt and officer. The defendant, sitting next to the wife, immediately responded […]
The defendant argued that the photo array in which he appeared was impermissibly suggestive under the Due Process Clause because he was the only person with an ear tattoo. The court disagreed because the distinctive tattoo was barely visible in the photo. Editor’s Note: This case has a good discussion of the 2-step test a […]
What started out as a “knock and talk” quickly got off track in this case. Given a totality of the circumstances, an LEO’s threat to “open the door or we’re going to knock it down” did not “fatally infect the voluntariness” of the subsequent consent to enter. Furthermore, the suspect was not in custody for […]