You are on page 1of 4

Miranda Quiz

Learning Team Miranda Quiz
Roxabel Perez, Ryan Burns, and Measha
CJA/304
March 02, 2015
Ross Horne

Miranda Quiz

CJA/304
Week 3 Learning Team Assignment
Hello Team;
For this assignment I want you to answer the below listed “situations.” In your
answer I want you to state what you based your reply on.
#1. A detective has enough probable cause to arrest Mickey for murder. But before he
does, the detective calls Mickey on the phone and tells him, “I’m on my way to your
house to arrest you. But before I do, I just want to ask you: did you commit this murder?”
Mickey responds, “Yeah, I did. Whadya gonna do about it?” True to his word, the
detective goes straight to Mickey’s house and arrests him. The prosecutor, at trial, wants
to introduce Mickey’s statement. One problem: the detective never gave Mickey his
Miranda warnings.
Admissible or not?
*That will not be admissible in court, because he did not read Mickey his Miranda
Rights before proceeding to ask him questions. So from my understanding that will get
thrown out of court, because they do not have anything to go on besides “Yeah I did.”
Mickey could have been covering for someone.
#2. A police officer is at a crime scene, and asks, out loud to the assembled masses,
“Anybody know who committed this crime?” Willie comes out of the crowd and says,
“Yes, officer, I committed it.” Willie is immediately arrested.
The prosecutor, at trial, wants to introduce Willie’s statement. One problem: the officer
never gave Willie his Miranda warnings.
Admissible or not?
*First, why did the officer even ask out loud did anyone commit the crime,
because at the time I could have been anybody. This case will not be admissible in court,
because if you are going to arrest anyone, you have to read them their Miranda Rights.
Willie probably didn’t even commit the crime once they interviewed him.
#3. A cop, on routine patrol, sees Duke walking down the block, the butt of a gun hanging
out the front of his pants waistband. The cop goes up to Duke, pats him down, and
removes a loaded .38 caliber revolver from the front waistband. Duke doesn’t have a
license for the gun and is in a state that requires a license to carry a loaded firearm. The
officer immediately arrests Duke for gun possession, but never advises Duke of his
Miranda warnings. The officer brings Duke to the precinct and, while processing the
arrest, notices a wanted poster for robbery with Duke’s picture on it!
The officer calls the detective handling the robbery, advises her that he has Duke sitting
right in front of him. The detective comes down, grabs Duke and, without ever advising
him of his Miranda warnings, throws him in a line-up where he is identified by the

Miranda Quiz
victim. The detective also processes Duke’s new arrest but never advises him of his
rights.
Duke gets indicted for gun possession and robbery. His lawyer makes a motion to
suppress everything (including the gun, the line-up identification and both arrests).
What’s the judge’s decision on the motion to suppress?
*The judge decision is to suppress the arrests, line-up , and gun the reason is
because both officer and detective failed to read the suspects the Miranda rights as well
for violating the suspects 4th amendment which protects him against unlawful search and
seizure.
#4. A man walks into a precinct and walks up to the desk. He announces to the officers, “I
just murdered my wife.” A detective is called over and s/he asks the defendant, “Would
you mind coming upstairs and talk about this for a little while?” The man says, “Not at
all!” and follows the detective up the stairs. Once they sit at a desk, the detective does not
handcuff the man nor block his exit.
Does the detective have to give him his Miranda warnings?
Can s/he continue to question him?
Is the initial statement admissible?
How about subsequent statements under these circumstances?
(Based on how others have responded to this, let me say that you can assume his wife is
really dead, the police find her body without his help, and he is not crazy!)
*In this case the detective does not have to give this individual his Miranda
Warnings. If an individual isn’t formally in police custody, and you aren’t being
interrogated, the police don’t have to give you a Miranda warning. Until the suspect is in
police custody or the suspect is under interrogation anything he says to the detective at
this time can be used as evidence against him in court. Based upon the police officers find
his wife’s body, and him admitting to the crime his initial statement when entering the
precinct “I just murdered my wife” is admissible. Upon this the detective may in fact
continue to question this individual, if the individual agrees to answer, which in this case
I believe his is. After all of this and the police discovering his wife’s body he would be
placed under arrest and read his Miranda Rights.
#5. A defendant is in the back of a police car, under arrest, for murder. The officers have
not yet read him his Miranda warnings. He asks the police in the front seat, “Who do you
say I killed?” The officer says, “Pamela.” The defendant says, “Yeah, well she had it
coming!”
Is this statement admissible?
*No, because the officer failed to read the Miranda Rights about being protected
against self incrimination.
Can the police then continue questioning him?

Miranda Quiz

*At this point the officer should stop the questioning, if he doesn’t want any
confession gathered to be thrown away.
Do Miranda warnings then have to be administered?
*Yes, it is important for officer to stop suspect and read the Miranda Rights so any
confession taken after arrest be used in court.