Police respond to an armed robbery call at a local deli. The store owner shows the video
of the suspect with a gun, provides the direction the suspect fled and tells police that
$375.00 in cash was taken. The police spot the suspect fleeing on foot two blocks away
and give chase. The suspect runs through a city park and is stopped near a playground.
Officer Smith conducts a frisk of the suspect for the handgun but finds no gun. Officer
Smith immediately asks the suspect “where’s the gun?” The suspect hesitates and
Officer Smith says “Look, there a lot of little kids here; we don’t want one of them to
find the gun and have a tragedy.” The suspect points to a garbage can near the
playground and states “it’s in the can.” Another officer retrieves the gun. The suspect is
then taken into custody, searched and brought to the police station where he is placed,
handcuffed, in an interrogation room. He is provided a written copy of his Miranda
warning and the warning is read to him. The search of the suspect produces $ 450.00 in
cash and a cell phone.
The suspect is questioned regarding the gun and the robbery. The detectives present the
now-unloaded gun in an evidence bag, which the suspect identifies as the one he threw
in the can. The suspect admits the gun is his, claiming he found it a week prior in an
alley by his apartment. He remains silent in response to questions regarding the robbery
and states “I am not talking about anything else that happened today.” The suspect is
then directed to stand in a lineup with five other persons. The store owner positively
identifies the suspect. The suspect is charged with the armed robbery, unlawful
possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes.
In the above scenario, did Officer Smith’s pre-Miranda questioning of the suspect
regarding the location of the location of the gun violate the Fifth Amendment?
a. Yes, in New York v. Quarles (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the public
safety exception to the Fifth Amendment for cases wherethe safety of the officer or
public would be potentially threatened.
b. No, in New York v. Quarles (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned thepublic
safety exception to the Fifth Amendment.
c. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the public safety exception to theFifth
Amendment for cases where the safety of the officer or public would bepotentially
threatened in Mapp v. Ohio.
d. No, as the U.S. Supreme Court established the public safety exception to theFifth
Amendment for cases where the safety of the officer or public would bepotentially
threatened in New York v. Quarles.