Marina2
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,244
- Reaction score
- 2
For Miranda purposes, the questioning has to meet a four-prong test. One prong is the manner in which she was questioned but that leaves three others that have to be met before Miranda warnings are required. Judge Perry ruled that none of the statements or interviews she gave met the four-prong test and denied the DT motion to suppress them. You can read his ruling here.It is not if she could get up and leave at any time. It is based on if she felt she was free to walk out at any time. Would a reasonable person feel that they could refuse to talk to the police and walk out of that conference room when they arrived in the back of the police car?
Also, the Fourth requirement for Miranda is if the statements were made in response to police conduct that constituted an interrogation. In Rhode Island v. Innis the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."
Again, I don't know why the Judge ruled the way he did but I am very surprised that was allowed in.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27242107/detail.html
He explains clearly why he denied the motion.