The following fact pattern is based on a true story and was provided to JD Logic Journal by a retired police investigator. Students can use these facts and questions as a discussion topic or as a written practice exam question. If used as an exam question, the suggested time limit is 60 minutes. A timer is provided below.
Fact Pattern:
Victim is found deceased lying on an isolated roadway. He has been beaten. His wallet is lying on the road empty of any currency. The victim’s driver’s license reveals he is from out of town. A subsequent check of the victim’s residence reveals one of his registered vehicles is missing. The vehicle is entered as a stolen vehicle by the police.
The next morning police from a neighboring state located the vehicle abandoned along an interstate highway, approximately 200 miles from where the victim was located. Later in the day, a subsequent search of the area around the vehicle recovers a toll ticket from a local expressway interchange. The ticket is time stamped earlier in the morning on the date of recovery.
A check with the toll booth listed on the ticket connects the ticket to the victim’s vehicle. The vehicle’s sole occupant had provided a driver’s license to the toll booth attendant. The driver did not have funds to pay the required toll. The toll booth attendant obtained the driver and vehicle information and provided instructions to the driver for mailing in the owed toll. Surveillance video captured images of the vehicle and driver. The driver was the sole occupant. Identifying information was also recorded by the toll booth attendant on a written form signed by the vehicle’s driver. A search of Department of Motor Vehicles photograph files matched those of the driver recorded at the toll booth.
The following day, after obtaining a search warrant, a search of the vehicle yielded fingerprints on the interior rearview mirror and partial palm print on the trunk lid.
The local police jurisdiction informed investigators that one of their patrol officers had encountered the identified subject at a local convenience store hours prior to the discovery of the vehicle. The subject had been questioned by their officer. The subject informed the officer he was waiting for a ride from his sister who lived locally. The police officer obtained the subject’s name, local address where he would be staying, and telephone number. The officer left after speaking to the store clerk and getting confirmation that the subject had used the store telephone to call a local number.
Investigating officers proceeded to the local police station to obtain additional assistance with the investigation. Surveillance was established at the subject’s sister’s residence.
Investigating officers contacted the subject by telephone. They identified themselves and their out of state jurisdiction. They informed him they were investigating the theft of a motor vehicle from their jurisdiction which had been located locally. The fact the vehicle’s recovery coincided with his arrival in the area raised the question of a connection between him and the vehicle. The subject acknowledged understanding the police wanting to question him. They requested he come to the local police station for an interview.
The subject agreed to come to speak to the police, however he had no means of transportation. The police offered to provide transportation by local police. The subject agreed. A locally marked police car occupied with two police officers, one uniformed and one in civilian clothes, transported the subject to the police station. The subject rode in the caged back seat of the police patrol car.
The subject was escorted by a uniformed police officer to a rear interview room where he was introduced to the officers from the investigating agency. The investigating officers were in plain clothes. The door to the interview room was closed. The subject’s path to the door was unobstructed.
After thanking the subject for agreeing to come in to speak with them, the investigating officers asked the subject if they could tape record the conversation. The subject agreed to the recording.
The police informed the subject of the nature of their investigation concerning the stolen vehicle. The subject denied any connection with the vehicle.
The subject was informed the discovery of the victim and his death. He was informed of the recovery of the expressway ticket, toll booth video and information sheet with his driver’s license information and signature. He was also informed of the recovery of finger and palm prints from the vehicle.
The subject stated, “Maybe I need an attorney?”
Investigators asked the subject if he wanted an attorney. They advised him one would be provided if he wanted. He was then given written Miranda Warnings on a preprinted department form. The subject acknowledged understanding his rights and signed the warnings form.
Again, the subject was asked if he wanted an attorney. One of the investigators stated, “getting you an attorney changes our relationship.”
The subject confessed to meeting the victim and getting in the victim’s car. The victim was looking for a party. The subject told the victim he could take him to a party and directed the victim to an isolated area. The subject decided to rob the victim. The victim stopped the car and both victim and subject stepped out to urinate. Once outside the car the subject assaulted the victim beating him with his fist until the victim fell to the ground. The subject then took money from the victim’s wallet and stole the victim’s car, leaving the victim lying on the roadway. The subject abandoned the victim’s vehicle when it ran out of gas.
After hearing the subject’s confession, the second investigator asked the subject if, with the written warnings in mind, he was sure he wanted to provide his statement without an attorney. The subject stated, “I know. I just fucked myself.”
Discuss any legal issues that may arise given these facts.
Consider the following questions:
Was the subject in police custody?
Was his statement given knowingly and voluntarily?
Was he properly advised of his constitutional protections?
Was the subject denied his right to an attorney?
Should the subject’s recorded statement be suppressed?
Kommentit