5th amendment Flashcards
Privilege against compulsory self incrimination
If an officers overhears a defendant speaking from a location where the LEO has permission to be is the defendant’s 5th amendment rights violated?
Although a conversation may be protected from seizure by the police under the Fourth Amendment, the defendant cannot assert a reasonable expectation of privacy in a statement that can be heard by a police officer standing in the street in front of the defendant’s home. Accordingly, the statement can be introduced without violating the defendant’s constitutional rights.
When does the 5th amendment not protect a defendant?
The Fifth Amendment protects against compulsory self-incrimination. It does not protect against statements that were made voluntarily and outside of police custody.
If the defendant has invoked his right to an attorney is anything he says after that admissible?
After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights and has invoked his right to an attorney, all interrogation of the suspect by police must stop. Nevertheless, a subsequent statement voluntarily made by the suspect is admissible. Although the suspect had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, he effectively waived that right by making a voluntary confession and it was not made in response to police interrogation.
Eliciting an incriminating response after Miranda rights have been given
The suspect’s rights can be violated even after Miranda rights have been read to the suspect. If the officers’ conversation were likely to elicit an incriminating response, then the fact that they read the suspect his Miranda rights prior to their conversation would not prohibit the suppression of the confession.
Are Undercover officers obligated to read miranda?
Miranda warnings are not required if the suspect being questioned is not aware that the interrogator is a police officer. Thus, an undercover officer may question a suspect without informing him of his rights, as was done in this case. Note, too, that Miranda warnings only apply to custodial interrogations.
Can the undercover officer use deceitful tactics to get information from a suspect without the confession being deemed involuntary?
Deceit or fraud by an interrogator (e.g., lying about a co-conspirator’s confession) does not itself make a confession involuntary.
What is an interrogation?
Interrogation refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions that the police know or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response
Is derivative physical evidence obtained as a result of a voluntary, uncoerced confession admissible?
Any statement obtained as the result of a custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless the police informed the suspect of his Miranda rights. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that derivative physical evidence (e.g., a gun) that has been obtained as a result of a voluntary, uncoerced confession that itself is inadmissible due to the failure by police to give Miranda warnings is admissible
When does the 5th amendment apply?
The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent applies when a person is subject by police to a custodial interrogation. Additionally, Entities such as corporations do not enjoy this privilege as it will only protect individuals.
Is an officer required to inform the suspect that prior incrimination statements made pre-miranda will not be used against her before obtaining a confession post miranda?
Miranda warnings are sufficient to alert a defendant to her rights. The police are not required to expand upon those warnings, even where the defendant has made a prior incriminating statement that, because the defendant did not receive Miranda warnings before making the statement, cannot be used as evidence against her.
Is moral compulsion protected under the 5th amendments?
The Fifth Amendment right to remain silent protects against police compulsion. Statements made under moral compulsion or at the behest of someone other than the police are not protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Are statements made after Miranda warnings were given admissible?
A statement given by a defendant after receiving Miranda warnings generally may be used as evidence against the defendant.
Can testimony was was given in violation of the 5th amendment be used for substantive and impeachment purposes?
A statement taken in violation of Miranda, as long as they are not coerced, may be used to impeach the credibility of a criminal defendant if he takes the witness stand and gives testimony at variance with his previous admissions in order to determine the defendant’s veracity, and not directly in deciding ultimate issues of guilt or innocence. (not as substantive proof)
