Cases and Rules

Question 1

Info about a bombing, knocked on door, suspect refused entry, came back with bad warrant, officer’s bust in and find obscene materials.

Answer 1

Mapp
- Held inadmissible
- All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.”

Question 2

Anonymous tip that selling drugs out of apartment, start investigation and submit a request for warrant and police conducted search.

Answer 2

Leon
- Held admissible
- Good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule. When an officer “acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope,” evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant should not be suppressed”

• When suppress?
• If the officer’s reliance on the on the subsequently invalidated warrant is not objectively reasonable
  i. Judges probable cause determination
  ii. Technical sufficiency of the warrant
  *Whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.”
• “good faith” also extents to the pre warrant period
  i. Suppression remains appropriate where judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.”

Question 3

Investigator, clerk in another county said yes warrant, but that warrant had already been recalled, but it was too late.

Answer 3

Herring
- Evidence admissible

1. To trigger ER, the conduct must be sufficiently deliberate so it is a deterrable
2. It also must be sufficiently culpable so that the exclusion is worth the cost
   a. Deliberate
   b. Reckless
   c. Grossly negligent
   d. Sometimes, recurring or systematic negligence

Question 4

Wire tap of phone booth

Answer 4

Katz
- Held inadmissible because subjective expectation and unreasonable

• Did the party exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy?
• Was that expectation on that society is “prepared to recognize as reasonable?”

Question 5

Garbage on the curb, found evidence

Answer 5

Greenwood
- Yes, actual subjective exp
- No, society not prepared

• The warrantless search of trash left outside on the curb does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left for collection in a publicly accessible place.
• Is this expectation that society is prepared to accept as reasonable? No. it is common knowledge that trash on street is readily accessible to all of these people and snoops, kids, trash collector, AND the cops.

Question 6

Officer goes to rural home, partially enclosed greenhouse. fly plane over

Answer 6

Riley
- Admissible
- Aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet is not a search requiring a warrant under the terms of the Fourth Amendment.
- subjective yes
- objective no

Question 7

GPS device on vehicle to track

Answer 7

Jones
- “When government physically invades personal property to gather information, a search occurs”

• Tracked movements for 28 days relaying over 2,000 pages of data over 4 weeks – could establish Jeep location to withn 50-100 fee

Question 8

Accesed cell-site location inforamtion and tracked location.

Answer 8

Carpenter
- Yes subjective
- No objective
- Third Party Doctrine
1 A person cannot have a reasonable expectation a privacy when they voluntarily disclose to a third party
2. Court does not apply because of the nature of the information itself.
a. Miller - bank records
b. Smith – Pen register that recorded phone umbers
c. But these two cases – are vastly different from the business records under the Third Party Doctrine exception – that it cannot apply (too expansive)
3. But we can ask the question – is this more like bank records, or more like CSLI data?

• 13,000 location points cataloging his movements over 127 days

Question 9

Dog sniff at front door

Answer 9

Jardines
- More property based
- “persons, houses, papers and effects:
a. “The home is first among equals.”
- Curtilage is a part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.
a. Versus open fields – which may be on private property but from which law enforcement can gather info with a warrant

Question 10

Anonymous letter, drug scheme, partially corroborated.

Answer 10

Gates.
- Yes, probable cause
- Probable cause is a fluid concept – turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules

Question 11

one of three men in the car, Rolled up money was in front of him as the front passenger, 5 bags of cocaine in back seat area accessible to all 3 men, Nobody acknowledged ownership

Answer 11

Pringle
- Reasonable officer could conclude that Pringle either alone (or jointly) committed the offense of cocaine possession
a. Joint possession (common enterprise_
b. He alone possessed the drugs
c. This is an expansion of police officers inferences for probably cause arrest

Question 12

Asked for warrant for apartment, spoke with injformant and looked at building, concluded onlu one apartment on third floor, but two.

Answer 12

Garrison
- Valid warrant
- “the validity of the warrant must be assessed o the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and to disclose, to the issuing magistrate
- The test – was to ask whether the failure of the overbreadth of the warrant was objectively understandable and reasonable (Leon)
- Good faith exception exists to permit inclusion of evidence even though the warrant was bad
- “need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes” made while doing the dangerous work of arresting and executing search warrants

Question 13

Search warrant, police hid identity, police kick down door and find drugs

Answer 13

Richards
- To justify a “no-knock” entry, police must have
1. Reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence would be dangerous or futile; or,
2. It would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence

Question 14

Officer see driver make turn without signal then speed, pull over

Answer 14

Whren
- detention reasonable
- The temporary detention of a motorist upon probably cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizure even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective
- pretext warrantless stops are okay as long as probably cause is established that the motorist violated traffic laws
- Traffic stop is a 4th Am seizure but does not require warrant because it is a temporary detention for a limited purpose
- Where PC has existed, Court only requires scrutiny where “searches or seizures [were] conducted in an extraordinary manner, usually harmful to an individual’s privacy or even physical interests”

Question 15

Minor offense but leads to arrest

Answer 15

Atwater
- The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a warrantless arrest for a minor offense.

Question 16

DNA taken from cheek only taken for identification purposes only

Answer 16

King
- DNA sample search post-arrest for a non-DNA related crime is reasonable thus no warrant required

Question 17

BAC test

Answer 17

Mitchell
- Exigency exists when
1. BAC evidence is dissipating, and
2. Some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application
ii. This application about Exigent Circumstances is ONLY ABOUT DUIs that’s it
iii. JUST ABOUT DUIs

Question 18

High crime area, Run away, Throws rock

Answer 18

Hodari
- 1. An arrest requires either physical force or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority
a. As to physical force – “seizure” means a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement”
b. Seizure does not apply where an officer yells “Stop, in the name of the law”

Question 19

Believes cops are car-jackers, flees, officers fire 13 times, suspect drives away

Answer 19

Torres
i. Yes. The application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person
ii. Needs “intent to restrain” because it accounts for the fact that the victim got away. There was a attempt to restrain but it did not work. Court says we need to expand the rule a bit here. It is a seizure.
l. Intent to restrain Test
i. Whether the challenged conduct objectively manifests as an intent to restrain.
1. While a mere touch can be enough for a seizure, the amount of force remains pertinent in assessing the objective intent to restrain
2. Subjective perceptions of the seized person are not relevant
ii. Objective standard
iii. Amount of force is pertinent – 13 shots

Question 20

Did not answer door, police broke in, no warrant

Answer 20

Payton
- warrantless entry unconstitutional
- Absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter a person’s home to make an arrest without a warrant.

Question 21

Valid arrest warrant, not home, wife lets in, comes home, complete search of home

Answer 21

Chimel
- evidence inadmissible
- SITA is limited to the search of an arrestee’s person and area within his immediate control
a. Officer safety
- closet could be sneak attack
b. Preservation of evidence

Question 22

Followed dude into brezeway, two doors, smelled burnt weed, officers knocked and announced, heard ruffling, kicked down door

Answer 22

King
- Remanded to determine exigency
- i. The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to an officer-created exigency if the exigency does not arise from the officer’s unreasonable or unconstitutional conduct.

Question 23

Selling weed for sex out of parked mobile home

Answer 23

Carney
- Evidence admissible
- i. Automobile exception
1. Police can search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probably cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband is in the vehicle

Question 24

Driving, handcuffed and put in back of police car, offficers search vehicle find gun and cocaine

Answer 24

Gant
- SITA search unreasonable
- . police can search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.
ii. Further in the vehicle context, SITA is justified when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle
1. Gant is arrested for suspended driver’s license, then what kind of evidence do they believe they are going to find? Not cocaine.

Question 25

Drugs in package, package in trunk and drives away, cops pull over

Answer 25

Acevedo
- Evidence admissible
- i. Court establishes a single rule for all containers in Cars: the police may search an automobile and the containers within where they have PC to believe contraband or evidence is contained

Question 26

SITA search and seized smartphone

Answer 26

Riley
- Not reasonable search
- Police officers generally must secure a warrant before conducting a search of the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest.
- cell phone nothing to do with safety nor evidence destruction

Question 27

Experienced officer, two men outside store, 24 times walk by and talk to third dude.

Answer 27

Terry
- Valid stop and frisk
i. Reasonable suspicion in the investigatory stop/search context (less than probable cause)
1. totality of circumstances for RS
a. Objective standard – would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?
b. mere hunch not enough alone
c. Rational inferences could mean officer experience ( 10 years in drug unit)

2. Also critical to recognize that this analysis goes to both the stop AND the frisk. Individually.
   a. Stop – RS that criminal activity is afoot
   b. Frisk – RS that that person whom they have stopped is armed and presently dangerous to officer and others

Limitation - protection of police and others. Limit to what is necessary.

Question 28

Anonymous tip, 3 black males at bus stop, one supposedly with gun

Answer 28

J.L.
- Stop and frisk allowed
i. An anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity
1. However, there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitable corroborated, exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop
2. In other words, a properly corroborated anonymous tip can rise to the level of specific and articulable facts forming the reasonable suspicion required to justify a Terry stop/search
a. But an anonymous tip alone – not so much

Question 29

i. High crime area
ii. Dude standing in high crime area with an opaque bag
iii. Sees caravan and runs

Answer 29

Wardlow
- yes reasonable suspicion
- Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion
1. Including “unprovoked flight” (did nothing directly to Wardlow)

Question 30

Addressed the traffic issue – gave a written warning. Once that was over, he completed the reason why he made the stop
ii. But then the stop lasted longer

Answer 30

Rodriguez
- Stop was too long
4. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose
5. Can do more, but need more reasonable suspicion for more Terry Stop

Question 31

Cop assumes Person is driving, recognizes plates on that truck and that truck belongs to X and he has a revoked license. But does not know if it is X or not

Answer 31

Glover
- RS found
- Courts must permit officer to make “commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior” enough for RS

Question 32

i. Two dudes on bus, bus stops and driver allows plain clothes, hidden gun. But badge showing officers to board to do a drug check, stand at front, but off to the side, so as not “threatening”
ii. Asks if can check two defendants bag, they say yes, they do
iii. Asks if can check person they say yes, find drugs

Answer 32

Drayton
- reasonable and consensual
i. The police may request consent to search a person, even if they have no basis for suspecting that individual of illegal activity, and the citizen is not subject to a Fourth Amendment seizure if a reasonable person would feel that he is free to leave.
- officers gave no reason to believe they were required to answer their questions – hence, voluntary and uncoerced consent

Question 33

Car broken light, pull over, 6 min in vehicle, only one has license and consents to search

Answer 33

Schneckcloth
- Found to be consensual
i. “the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and no the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.:
1. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from “the totality of all of the circumstances.”
2. The subject’s knowledge of a right to refuse is merely a factor to be taken into account
3. Account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents

Question 34

i. Domestic dispute. wifecomplained about husband’s drug use and also volunteered that there were items of drug evidence in the house
ii. Cops ask X for permission to search the house, but X unequivocally refused
iii. Cop then asked wife, and she gave consent, led them upstairs to a bedroom and showed cocaine straw
iv. Cop then left to get evi bag and called the DA, who told him to stop the search and apply for a warrant
v. When cop returned, wife withdrew her consent
vi. Took straw and Xs to the police station
vii. Got search warrant, and returned to house and seized further evidence of drug use

Answer 34

Randolph
- not valid consent
i. when two roommates are both there – when one person says no, then that consent of the other cohab is not valid
ii. Matlock – Court willing to import social norms to help define what the law should be around cohab consent
1. That might happen especially when roommate not around.
2. Court says then this also applies for consent
iii. Valid consents includes
1. Consent be co-occupants with authority when you’re not around

Question 35

Broke into laundry arrested X, X told agents about Y selling drugs, Y said Z implicated. Arraigned, released, went to Narcotics Bureau and was interrogated

Answer 35

Wong Sun
- Statement was attenuated enough and allowed
- Toy statement not allowed
i. Although evidence obtained through illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial as it is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” the connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible.

Question 36

No warrant or PC, broke into apartment at gunpoint and started searching, interrogated and incriminated himself

Answer 36

Brown
- Statements inadmissible
Attenuation factors:
i. Presence of Miranda warnings
1. Warnings is important as a factor in dterming whether a confession is obtained by exploitation of an illgal arrest
ii. Temporal proximity
1. SCOTUS – first statement separated from illegal arrest by less than 2 hours – not long enough here to attenuate
2. SCOTUS – second statement, despite ocuring later, clearly the reslt and fruit
iii. Presence of intervening circumstances
iv. Purpose/flagrancy of the official misconduct

Question 37

Anonymous tip re drug at a home, saw D leave home, stop without RS, looked for arrest warrant, SITA found meth

Answer 37

Strieff
- Stop reasonable evidence admissible
i. Temporal proximity
1. Directly after, so not good for the government – favors suppression
2. Officer found drugs only minutes after bad stop
3. In Brown, less than 2 hours between bad arrest and confession was not substantial

ii. Presence of intervening circumstances
1. Presence of warrant is a good intervening circumstance
2. Segura case – Court found sufficient intervening circs
a. Had probably cause, just has not been issued yet
b. Applying Segura -valid traffic warrant predated this investigation and was unconnected with this stop
3. Existence of the arrest warrant was a critical intervening circumstance independent of the illegal stop

iii. Purpose and flagrancy of official misconduct
1. Exclusion favored “only when the police misconduct is most in need of deterrence – that is , when it is purposeful or flagrant”
a. Officer was at most negligent
i. Two good faith mistakes
1. Never saw Steff enter house
2. Lacked confirmation that he was a short term visitor

Question 38

Info re warehouse, force in, see weed, leave, then apply for warrant w/o mentioning prior entry

Answer 38

Murray
- remanded under independent source
v. Independent source – “when the challenged evidence has an independent source of exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse potion that they would have been absent any error or violation
1. Independe source = later lawful police conduct (e.g. search pursuant to a valid warrant) which is independent of the original illegality
2. So here, indep source could be the execution of the validly obtained warrant so long as
a. Officers decision to seek warrant not influenced by what they saw during their illegal conduct

Question 39

Murder of 10 yr old girl, search party stopped by weather

Answer 39

Nix
- evidence admissible
i. “if the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the info ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.. then the deterrence rational…
i. Independence Source does not apply since the statement led directly to the evidence without a warrant or some such device (cf. Segura, Murray)

Question 40

Search warrant,announced but only waited 3-5 seconds beore entering, found drugs and firearms

Answer 40

Hudson,
- Evidence admissible
No, failure to knock and announce while executing the search warrant should not result in exclusion
i. Knock and exists
1. Allows the opportunity to collect oneself before answering the door
2. Hs nothing to do with preventing the gov from seeing or ta evidence described in a lawfully obtained warrant

Question 41

Felony, no money, and asks for court to appoint lawyer

Answer 41

Gideon
- Yes needed counsel
i. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to the states.

Question 42

Misdemeanor, indigent, no counsel, 30 day jail but suspended and placed on 2 years probation

Answer 42

Shelton
i. The right to counsel extends to defendants that have a suspended sentence which could lead to imprisonment.

Question 43

Petitioner contends that his trial counsel proved constitutionally ineffective by falling asleep during the State’s summation and in failing to investigate and interview numerous witnesses and potential witnesses.

Answer 43

Birthwright
- counsel was effective
h. 2 Part Test under Strickland
i. Deficient performance of counsel
1. “errors so serious that counsel was not function as the “counsel” guaranteed” in 6th Am
2. “reasonably effective assistance”
3. Must show that counsel fell below that standard
4. IT IS A HIGHLY DEFERENTIAL STANDARD
a. Court will analyze your performance as a counselor from a high differential point of view
b. I am deferring to your choices to determine whether you should’ve gone to talk to those four witnesses

ii. Prejudice that resulted in the deprivation of a fair trial
1. Reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different
a. Reasonable probability = probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome
2. Supporting factual allegations are required; “unadorned” legal conclusions insufficient
a. How do we get to ‘required’?

Question 44

Retained attorney, turned himself in, refused to answer and asked for attorney, homie in PD was used to leverage

Answer 44

Spano
- confession was coerced
Test
i. Totality of circumstances analysis to determine “voluntariness”
1. “Undeviating intent” of the officers to extract a confession so demonstrated requires “the most careful scrutiny”

ii. Totality test
1. Overnight questioning, no breaks
2. Employing buddy in a ruse
3. Brought in prosecutor who is trained to extract this information in a way that cops are not
4. Did refuse counsel even when asked multiple times
5. Junior high education
6. Foreign-born – no contact with law
7. History of emotional instability

Question 45

Codefendants, bugged car, after arraignment

Answer 45

Massiah
once formal proceedings begin, the 6th Am right counsel attached and you cannot interrogate people

Question 46

Attorneys spring from custodyy, 11 days pass, arrested but asks for lawyer, polcie setup meeting with 2 dudes and def incriminates

Answer 46

Escobedo
- Right of counsel attached
i. Right to Counsel attached when the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory.
1. When its focus is on the accused and its purpose is to elicit a confession, our adversary stem begins to operate, and, under the circumstances, the accused must be permitted to consult with his lawyer

Question 47

Did not waive rights, mental illness, confessed while in custody

Answer 47

Miranda
- Statement inadmissible
procedural safeguards
1. Right to remain silent
2. Anything said can/will be used against the individual in court
3. Right to consult with a lawyer (and to have the lawyer present during interrogation)
4. If indigent, an attorney will be appointed to represent the individual

viii. “If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, than he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease

Question 48

13 yr old, out of class into conf room w uniform officer and admin, questioned for 30 min, told not to leave , door closed

Answer 48

J.D.B.
- Remanded to determine factors considered
h. Standard Test – “Whether a suspect ‘ in custody’ is an objective inquiry” involves two parts
i. Objective circumstances of the interrogation
ii. Given those circumstances, would a RP in the suspect’s position have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave

i. Officers should take into account the suspect’s age in determining whether a suspect is in custody
ii. So long as the child’s age was known to the officer at the time of the interview, or would have been objectively apparent to an reasonable officer
1. Age does not require officers to consider unknowable circumstances nor to anticipate the frailties and idiosyncrasies of the particular suspect

Question 49

Def put into car, officers talk to one another about handicap children

Answer 49

Innis
- not interrogated
2. “Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent
a. Express questioning
b. Any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect
i. Focus on the perceptions of the suspect rather than the intent of the police

3. “A practice that police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation.”
   a. Important factor – any knowledge the police may have had concerning the unusual susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion

Question 50

Fellow inmate, suggested escape, during convo asked if hes done somebody, implication

Answer 50

Perkins
- No violation of 5th Am rights
under 5th Am Miranda analysis, the essential ingredients of a police atmosphere and compulsion are not present
ii. If dealing with undercover officer or informant, that is not a custodial interrogation

Question 51

Interrogation, presented and read Miranda out loud, sat in silence, but said yes re God

Answer 51

Thompkins
- statement admissible
i. A waiver has to be knowing and voluntary
1. Waivers can be established even absence formal or express statements of waiver AKA can be implied
ii. SCOTUS TEST – where prosecution shows a Miranda warning has been given and understood by the accused, an uncoerced statement established an implied waiver of the Right to Remain silent
1. No contention here
2. Answers to Qs about God = course of conduct indicating waiver – elapsed time is irrelevant
iii. Should not have been questioned until they first obtained a waiver
1. If Butler rules that waiver can be implied from the actions and words of the person interrogated, then this cant also mean that waiver is required before question even occurs

Question 52

i. asekd to come to station, Not deemed to be in custody
ii. asked about shotgun and looked away and declined to answer
iii. He was free to leave
iv. Thus, no Miranda warnings given

Answer 52

Salinas
- Express invocation of right ot remain silent is required.

Question 53

i. Break in custody (2.5 years)
ii. He invokes his right to counsel, so police stop interrogation and then kept it moving
iii. They come back and he signs a written waiver of Miranda
iv. Tries to argue that first invocation of right to counsel should count

Answer 53

Shatzer
- Once a suspect is released and they return to normal life, they are likely to sought counsel from family or friends – this matters to Scalia. In this period of time, will have had an opportunity to talk to people about this and return to your normal life.
- 14 days

Question 54

Arraigned, two detectives request def accompanies thme on trip, writes inculpatory letter

Answer 54

Montejo
vi. Miranda provides sufficient prophylaxis to cover both 5th and 6th Am
vii. 6th Am right to counsel exists for all other non-custodial circumstances (like Massiah or Perkins) if Perkins was in custody for Crime B for example

Question 55

Def cornered, frisked, nodded in direcition of gun, officers put away gun

Answer 55

Quarles
- Statement and gun admissible
i. There is a public-safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s statements may be admitted into evidence at trial.
n. Test
i. Did police ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety?

Question 56

Arrested, fed read Miranda, but def interrupted him and said he knew rights, told re gun

Answer 56

Patane
Physical evidence found on the bases of a suspect’s voluntary but unwarned statements is admissible at trial.

Miranda warnings are required to protect a suspect’s rights under the Self-Incrimination Clause, but admission of physical evidence found on the basis of a suspect’s voluntary but unwarned statement does not violate the clause.

Question 57

First interrogation non-Miranda, second interrogation w Miranda

Answer 57

Seibert
- Confession inadmissible
1. Such a statement is inadmissible unless the accompanying break between the two interrogations was sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable believe that she has the right not to speak with the police

Question 58

Mentall illness, attorney advised him not to say anything and told officers, in car said ask lawyer, officer gave Christian burial speech

Answer 58

Williams
- not admissible
- no waiver
i. A defendant has not effectively waived his right to counsel if, at the advice of counsel, he continues to invoke his right to remain silent until he has the opportunity to confer with his attorney but then makes a statement after being subject to police interrogation.