Jake648012003
Junior Member
What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? MO
Here is the scenario:
An investigation, which was conducted from an “anonymous tip”, indicated three young adult males, and the mother of the “victim” as four primary suspects in a statutory sodomy case. Currently all suspects that were indicated during the investigation are in custody or have been in custody. The person described in the following situation was determined to be a suspect before he was contacted by a state police investigator.
A 21-year-old Suspect in a statutory sodomy case (of a 16-year-old) was contacted via telephone, asked to come to the station or "the officer would come to the house", to keep the officers away from the house because of embarrassment, the suspect had the investigator schedule a meeting at the station. The officer would not tell him what the “issue” was about.
Upon going to the meeting the suspect he was asked if he would like a cup of coffee, and was directed to an interrogation room. The interrogation room was located in the “basement” or downstairs of the large “military setting” state patrol troop headquarters building, the room contained a one-way mirror, and a polygraph machine. The room was described as small in nature. Suspect advised he knew there was other investigators/officers behind the one-way mirror, he heard them talk at one point, and could see though at one point due to the door on the observation room (opposite side of one-way mirror) being left open.
The investigator entered the interrogation room, closed the door, told the suspect he was not in trouble in any way, nor a suspect, and told him this interview was totally voluntary. At no point during the interrogation was the suspect ever read his Miranda rights. During the interrogation the investigator told the suspect he knew he was lying, that he “did not like to be lied to, and he had 14 statements against him”.
The investigator let him read the “victim’s” statement, preceded to tell him his honesty would determine the "length of his sentence" and went into discussion of the "Scott Peterson Trial”. The investigator said "see look what happened to Scott Peterson, he lied, and now he's getting the death penalty". When the suspect started to cry the investigator allowed the suspect to go outside to smoke a cigarette, but followed him outside and continued to talk about the case, stood with him the entire time, when finished he directed him back to the interrogation room. The suspect asked the investigator if he “should get an attorney", the investigator told him "no you are not in trouble this is all voluntary". The suspect admitted to doing some minor things with the “victim”. The investigator told the suspect he was “sending the case to be reviewed by the prosecutor”. The suspect was allowed to leave the station. The investigator told him if warrants were issued he would contact him to turn himself in. The total duration of the interrogation was approximately 1.5 hours. The suspect advised me he “felt there was no way he could have gotten out of there during the interrogation”.
One week later a warrant with four counts of statutory sodomy in the 2nd degree was issued for the suspect’s arrest. The suspect was contacted and he turned himself in within an hour and a half. Suspect is still in custody.
So basically I guess the question is: Was the suspect in a “in custody and interrogation” situation that requires Miranda Warning and should statements be suppressed? I believe he is based on the following points:
1. Investigator contacted via telephone, basically told him he would come to the house if he did not come to the station. Suspect went to the station to avoid the embarrassment of the police being at his house. He felt he had no other choice but to go.
2. The interrogation was conducted in an obvious interrogation room located in a downstairs/basement area, behind closed doors inside the police station.
3. The investigator told the suspect he was lying, asked him specific questions regarding a specific crime, which institutes "interrogation".
4. Investigator lied about statements and evidence against suspect in attempts to get an incriminating response.
5. Investigator made threats that he was going to get the “maximum punishment”, using "death penalty" as an example IF the truth was not told.
6. Investigator would not let the suspect out of his sight, even for "breaks".
7. Investigator lied about the suspect "not being in trouble or a suspect". Told him he “did not need a lawyer, because he was not in trouble”.
8. The young age of the suspect, never dealing with the police before in a suspect capacity, and was extremely intimidated due to the “military” setting of the large state building, and the location of the interrogation room.
I don't feel this is a correct way to do business, and is an OBVIOUS attemt to "Skate around" the laws set fourth.
Here is the scenario:
An investigation, which was conducted from an “anonymous tip”, indicated three young adult males, and the mother of the “victim” as four primary suspects in a statutory sodomy case. Currently all suspects that were indicated during the investigation are in custody or have been in custody. The person described in the following situation was determined to be a suspect before he was contacted by a state police investigator.
A 21-year-old Suspect in a statutory sodomy case (of a 16-year-old) was contacted via telephone, asked to come to the station or "the officer would come to the house", to keep the officers away from the house because of embarrassment, the suspect had the investigator schedule a meeting at the station. The officer would not tell him what the “issue” was about.
Upon going to the meeting the suspect he was asked if he would like a cup of coffee, and was directed to an interrogation room. The interrogation room was located in the “basement” or downstairs of the large “military setting” state patrol troop headquarters building, the room contained a one-way mirror, and a polygraph machine. The room was described as small in nature. Suspect advised he knew there was other investigators/officers behind the one-way mirror, he heard them talk at one point, and could see though at one point due to the door on the observation room (opposite side of one-way mirror) being left open.
The investigator entered the interrogation room, closed the door, told the suspect he was not in trouble in any way, nor a suspect, and told him this interview was totally voluntary. At no point during the interrogation was the suspect ever read his Miranda rights. During the interrogation the investigator told the suspect he knew he was lying, that he “did not like to be lied to, and he had 14 statements against him”.
The investigator let him read the “victim’s” statement, preceded to tell him his honesty would determine the "length of his sentence" and went into discussion of the "Scott Peterson Trial”. The investigator said "see look what happened to Scott Peterson, he lied, and now he's getting the death penalty". When the suspect started to cry the investigator allowed the suspect to go outside to smoke a cigarette, but followed him outside and continued to talk about the case, stood with him the entire time, when finished he directed him back to the interrogation room. The suspect asked the investigator if he “should get an attorney", the investigator told him "no you are not in trouble this is all voluntary". The suspect admitted to doing some minor things with the “victim”. The investigator told the suspect he was “sending the case to be reviewed by the prosecutor”. The suspect was allowed to leave the station. The investigator told him if warrants were issued he would contact him to turn himself in. The total duration of the interrogation was approximately 1.5 hours. The suspect advised me he “felt there was no way he could have gotten out of there during the interrogation”.
One week later a warrant with four counts of statutory sodomy in the 2nd degree was issued for the suspect’s arrest. The suspect was contacted and he turned himself in within an hour and a half. Suspect is still in custody.
So basically I guess the question is: Was the suspect in a “in custody and interrogation” situation that requires Miranda Warning and should statements be suppressed? I believe he is based on the following points:
1. Investigator contacted via telephone, basically told him he would come to the house if he did not come to the station. Suspect went to the station to avoid the embarrassment of the police being at his house. He felt he had no other choice but to go.
2. The interrogation was conducted in an obvious interrogation room located in a downstairs/basement area, behind closed doors inside the police station.
3. The investigator told the suspect he was lying, asked him specific questions regarding a specific crime, which institutes "interrogation".
4. Investigator lied about statements and evidence against suspect in attempts to get an incriminating response.
5. Investigator made threats that he was going to get the “maximum punishment”, using "death penalty" as an example IF the truth was not told.
6. Investigator would not let the suspect out of his sight, even for "breaks".
7. Investigator lied about the suspect "not being in trouble or a suspect". Told him he “did not need a lawyer, because he was not in trouble”.
8. The young age of the suspect, never dealing with the police before in a suspect capacity, and was extremely intimidated due to the “military” setting of the large state building, and the location of the interrogation room.
I don't feel this is a correct way to do business, and is an OBVIOUS attemt to "Skate around" the laws set fourth.
