Joe was arrested for drunk driving by an officer of the Los Angeles Police Department. Neither the arresting officer nor anyone at the police station read him his rights. Nevertheless, the investigating officer asked him his name, age, address, and place of birth. The only thing that Joe remembered and was able to communicate to the investigating officer was his name. At the trial, the prosecution sought to introduce this fact as evidence that Joe's mental faculties were impaired. The evidence will probably be:
A. inadmissible because this is exactly the type of situation which Miranda is designed to protect.
B. admissible because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is inapplicable to Miranda violations.
C. admissible because Joe's situation falls within an exception to Miranda.
D. inadmissible because someone who is seriously impaired cannot knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his rights.
Answer: C
You might also like to view...
The jail removal initiative is a movement to abolish jails in U.S. counties
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Answer the following statements true (T) or false (F)
The corrections industry has become a major state employer. One in 8 state employees work in corrections.
______ law is based on legal precedent.
a. Statutory b. Case c. Administrative d. Constitutional
Opponents to your bill would cite John Stuart Mill and would say that your proposed law is a bad idea since violators aren't actually harming anyone. Your proposed law would violate Mill's:
a. harm principle b. noble cause c. natural law d. conflict paradigm