In Wong Sun v. U.S., the Supreme Court concluded that the taint had been dissipated
over the period of several days and the confession was admissible.
a. True
b. False
Case 17.1
Shelbyville city police heard rumors that Jack and his brother John were involved in
illegal sports betting. To avoid the police, the brothers supposedly moved from location
to location and operated an active betting office with several employees, generally from
hotel rooms. The police received a call from a disgruntled bettor that the mobile betting
parlor would be set up next Wednesday. The cooperative bettor agreed to allow police
officers to install hidden microphones and video cameras in his home, and promised to
offer Jack and John the use his of home in exchange for a break on his gambling debt.
John also had a legitimate job at a local carwash and the surveillance technicians snuck
into the carwash to plant an additional microphone in his private office to try and
confirm details of the betting operation. As it turned out, John did not talk about his
gambling job at the carwash, though several of the other employees did use his office
when he was out to talk about how they were embezzling money from the business. As
it turned out, Jack and John did set up the gambling parlor at the house. Over the next
several days, Jack and John conducted illegal betting operations that were recorded both
with the microphone and with the video camera. Both men were arrested for violation
of state law, which prohibited such gambling operations. Julie and Deborah were also
arrested for embezzlement at the carwash the same day based on their incriminating
statements in John’s office. Additionally, the industrious surveillance technicians also
filmed Maggie entering and leaving the house in which the gambling parlor had been
set up from their surveillance van in the street. She was arrested for illegal gambling.
Julie and Deborah are also not happy about losing their job at the carwash or being
charged with embezzlement. If they challenge admissibility of the surveillance
evidence,
a. they will succeed since the police did not secure a search warrant.
b. the evidence will be admitted since the recordings did not take place at their homes.