onlyoncemore wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:38 pm
A marijuana farmer(F) had been missing for several months. The police received an anonymous tip that a rival farmer (RF) had buried the missing F in a hillside about 200yards from the RF's farmhouse. Police went to RF's farm. They cut the barbed wire that surrounded the hillside and entered, looking for the grave. they also searched the adjacent fileds on the RF's farm that were within the area enclosed by the barned wire and discoered clothing that bellowed to F hanging on a scarecrow. RF observed their discovery and began shooting. The police returned the fire. RF dashed to his pickup truck to escape. Unable to start it, he fled across a field toward the barn. An officer tackled him just as he entered the barn.
As RF attempted to get up, officer pinned his arm behind his back. Another officer threatened, "Tell us what you did with F or we'll lock you up and you'll see your family on welfare." RF responded that he killed F in a fight but didn't report the incident because he didn't want authorities to enter his land and discover his weed crops. Instead he buried F behind the barn. RF was thereafter charged with murder. If the rival farmer moves to suppress his administration about killing his neighbor, the court should,
- grant the motion, because the RF didn't voluntarily waive his right to silence
- grant the motion, because the statement was product of warrantless entry and search of the RF's farm
- deny motion, because officer was in hot pursuit when he questioned RF
- deny motion, because RF was questioned during a police emergency search.
So wait, the answer was or wasn't answer choice B?
I picked A because it sounds like a fishy way of wording the miranda issue at play here. It's inadmissible because he didn't get his miranda rights. If he got his miranda rights, he could then voluntarily waive his right to remain silent by blabbing stuff out. Thus answer choice A is right (IMO) in that "we're trying to trick you" bullshitty way, he didn't voluntarily waive cause he didn't get his rights read.
Cops didn't need a warrant for the arrest because cops had probable cause to believe he committed a felony (anonymous tip about him burying neighbor, he also shot at them so that's a twofer) and they didn't need a warrant for where they were at because 4a protections didn't apply.
4a protections protect against 1. warrantless search of a place w/reasonable expectation of privacy, 2. physical intrusion on constitutionally protected area. Curtilage 4a protections is a four factor test. (1) How close to home to the curtilege (2) was it enclosed (3) how was it being used ("domestic" in nature?), (4) what steps taken to protect from passing observation.
So my argument against it being curtilage protected by 4a rights is 1. its real far from the house, 2. you can see through a barbed wire fence, 3. area not being used for domestic purposes.
So not B.
It's not C because hot pursuit covers their ass for following him into the barn (assuming barn even had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is arguable also), and would cover any stuff they found, but it doesn't cover not giving Miranda rights.
Not D. because an emergency search provides a situation for a warrantless search, but again doesn't have anything to do with statement during an arrest.