Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

Case Study 3: Confessions and Admissions after a Request for a Lawyer

CRJ325 Criminal Procedure

The Fourth and Fifth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement in police work governed Officer Jones’ actions in the warrantless arrest of the shoplifting suspect.The warrantless arrest was justified when probable cause was present before Officer Jones’ seizure. Probable cause existed when Officer Jones had a reasonable belief in the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information obtained from the security guard before the arrest. Also, the articles integrated within the Fifth Amendment frame important constitutional limitations on police procedure, including a restriction against self-incrimination.Holder & Holder (1997) confirmed that, “If a person is involved in any sort of investigation by law enforcement officials, he has the right to invoke this privilege” (p. 72).In short, the rights of the shoplifting suspect under the Fifth Amendment began when Officer Jones questioned him. The Fifth Amendment protected the suspect from being forced to incriminate himself when he refused to provide a statement and asked for a lawyer.

The Edwards Rule

Edwards v. Arizona (1981), also known as the Edwards Rule, is a ruling forbidding police from starting an interrogation of a suspect who has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.When Officer Jones made the arrest, the shoplifting suspect refused to self-incriminate himself, and he requested an attorney. Law enforcement cannot question the suspect again for the same offense unless he initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversation with the police before an attorney has been provided (Del Carmen, 2014, p. 356).In short, once the shoplifting suspect asked for a lawyer, any questioning by law enforcement must halt.

The Confession

Again, once the shoplifting suspect invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent until he consults a lawyer, the suspect cannot be interrogated again unless he initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police (Del Carmen, 2014, p. 356).This privilege continued after being transported and booked into jail.And, according to the Edwards Rule, the detective should not have interviewed him five hours after being booked since the suspect did not initiate further communication or a lawyer was not consulted yet.As a result, the suspect’s confession to the detective is inadmissible.

References

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S 477 (1981).

• Del Carmen, R. V. (2014). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.

Holder, A. R., & Holder, J. T. R. (1997). The meaning of the constitution. Barron’s Educational Series.