A suspect was taken into custody for questioning about a robbery. Before being questioned, the suspect was advised of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The suspect waived these rights and provided a voluntary confession. Later, the suspect claimed the waiver was invalid because the police failed to inform them that their attorney had called the station and was attempting to meet with them. Should the confession be admissible in court?
The confession is admissible because the suspect voluntarily waived their rights after being properly advised of them.
The confession is inadmissible because the police were required to inform the suspect that an attorney was attempting to contact them.
The confession is inadmissible because the police initiated questioning after taking the suspect into custody.
The confession is inadmissible because the suspect cannot waive their right to an attorney without first consulting with one.
The admissibility of the confession hinges on whether the suspect's waiver of their rights was both knowing and voluntary. In this case, the suspect was properly informed of their rights (Miranda warnings) and voluntarily waived them. The Supreme Court has held that the police are not required to inform a suspect that an attorney is seeking to contact them unless the suspect expresses a desire for an attorney. The failure to inform the suspect of the attorney's call does not invalidate the waiver. The incorrect answers focus on misconceptions of the law, such as requiring police to disclose attempts by an attorney to contact the suspect or assuming that waiving the right to an attorney automatically invalidates a confession.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are Miranda warnings?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to waive one's rights?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What happens if a suspect wants an attorney during questioning?