Police received a tip that a man has been selling drugs out of his house and that there are several teenagers who work for him as peddlers. Two officers stopped him outside his house and asked if he would accompany them to the station to answer some questions. He agreed to come along.
On the way to the station, the officers pointed to children walking around and mentioned that penalty is heavy for those who sell drugs to children, or involve them in selling drugs. The suspect said, “Hey, I may have dealt some drugs, but I have never sold to kids or dealt with kids.“
When they arrived at the station, the officers arrested him and read him his rights, based on the tip they had received initially, and his admission to selling drugs. Then he was taken to a room and confronted with being the center of a drug ring that uses teenagers to distribute drugs. He asked, “Maybe I should call my lawyer?“ The officers replied, “Telling us the truth will do much more for you than seeing a lawyer.“ The man admitted to his involvement and called his lawyer afterward.
Based on the case study for submit a case analysis and answer the following questions:
Assume that you are the judge on this case. What motions to dismiss would you expect to hear from the defense in the case? How would the prosecution counter these motions?
What are the key issues arising from the defendant’s admission made while in the police car? Is the case within the ambit of Miranda, or outside it? Why do you think so?
Should the defendant’s admission in the police car be admissible? Why or why not? Discuss with reference to United States v. Patane (2004).
What would have been the effect on this case if the suspect had not asked for his lawyer? Discuss with reference to Escobedo v. Illinois.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/630/
