100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 3 pages.
point short of arrest is there the functional equivalent of custodial interrogation? The test is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. This is an objective test based on the totality of circumstances.These factors include the number of officers, where the individual is detained, thelength and intensity of the questioning, public or private location, the offense that is investigated (a traffic stop is presumptively brief), whether the individual is told that they will be free to leave following the interrogation.Today we learned that when a suspect invokes his/her right to counsel that the police may not interrogate the suspect for the same or different crime unless the suspect initiates contact (Edwards) or a lawyer is present. Bradshaw defines initiation as a statement about the criminal investigation that does not involve a necessary incident of the custodial relationship (eg. where is the shower). Shatzer solved a problem created by Edwards by establishing the break-in-custody rule which allows the police to interrogate an individual who has invoked his/her right to a lawyer after 14 days. The Fifth Amendment protects individual’s self-incrimination but is limited to testimonial evidence (eg. words). Physical evidence is non-testimonial (eg. blood, hair, bite marks, handwriting exemplars).Today we saw in Connelly that an involuntary confession requires a nexus between state coercion and the confession. The most outrageous behavior by a private party does not result in an involuntary confession. We then saw in Davis and Berghuis that invocation of a right to a lawyer (Davis) and invocation of a right to silence (Berghuis) requires a clear and unequivocal statement that a reasonable officer would interpret as an invocation of the right to a lawyer/silence. If the invocation is ambiguous and police need not clarify the suspect's intent and may continue the interrogation.